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

Here is the case they reference:

quote:

---

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.”192

U.S. v. Lustyik is also instructive. There, an FBI agent was found guilty of obstruction of justice under Sections 1503 and 1505 where he “used his status as an FBI agent” to try to “derail” a government investigation.231

---

BBonds 25, I found a link about your theory:

quote:

---

The case law on obstruction of FBI investigations is sparse in part because the Bureau can charge crimes that are much easier to prove—§ 1001 for making false statements, for instance—and because key modalities of obstruction of FBI investigation are individually criminalized. It is, for example, a crime to tamper with witnesses, a crime to bribe a law enforcement officer, and a crime to destroy evidence.

So is Trump off the hook on obstruction? Hardly. For one thing, it’s not entirely clear that Higgins is correct. At least some scholars doubt that the 36-year-old district court case, whose reasoning seems counter to a number of circuit court decisions defining “proceeding,” is the best reading of the law.

---

LINK

US attorney manual

The US attorney manual cites United States v Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453 and United States v Scaratow, 137 F. Supp. 620 when it states:

quote:

---

However, investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings.

---

Now...in 118 pages, the fine conservative folks at Brookings failed to even address this issue. That the precedent and even the US Attorney Manual States FBI investigations aren't proceeding under the code. Why do you think that is?

quote:

---

I grew up in Louisiana and graduated LSU.

We both live in bubbles. I'm on here to step outside of mine, what do you do to get outside of yours?

---

I don't live in a bubble I live in reality.

quote:

---

Brookings

---

quote:

---

Conservative

---

quote:

---

Center right

---

Let me give you some precedents....
Fast and Furious - no prosecution
IRS targeting scandal - no prosecution
Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting - no prosecution
Clinton Foundation receiving illegal contributions- no prosecution
Hillary Clinton “pay for play” - no prosecution
Benghazi cover up - no prosecution
Hillary email scandal - no prosecution

All of these cases have vastly more substantial evidence, including intent, to prosecute. They won’t and likely never will. The DC swamp is really showing its hand if it goes after Trump in this flimsy premise outlined in your “report,” especially considering all the above.

quote:

---

BBonds 25, I found a link about your theory:

---

It's not my theory. It is directs from the US attorney manual which cites two cases as to why it made that determination. You may find scholars who disagree with the interpretation. However, there is at least a question to be argued....but in reality, until Trump...nobody ever questioned he well-established precedent.

Airtight you say?

Executive power and privilege beoch!

quote:

---

that President Donald Trump likely obstructed justice

---

Well there's that definitive word again being used as proof of something.

Completely irrelevant. Lustyik is not the POTUS.

Bottom line: The argument is going to boil down to whether the POTUS truly is the head of the executive branch (he is) and whether he is allowed to direct investigations as he sees fit. The constitution doesn't prevent him from doing whatever he wants with the FBI -- and indeed the constitution explicitly makes him the dictator of the executive branch. The FBI wasn't around in the 1780's, but the constitution did make provisions for administrative agencies (which the FBI is) The POTUS is the head honcho of all executive branch agencies.

All of the technical arguments as to whether this or that is or isn't obstruction is irrelevant to the POTUS. He is not Joe Sixpack.