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

quote:

---

My understanding is that the money Flynn receives from Russia was for a speech he gave at a publicized event in Russia. One where he shared a table with Jill Stein. Is that the instance of lying about taking money from Russia you refer to?

The turkey issue is Monafort, right? He was a Turkish agent and didn't disclose. Is that the issue you are referring to? Any others?

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/michael-flynn-turkey.html

WASHINGTON — The candidate he was advising last fall was running on a platform of America First. The client he was working for last fall was paying him more than $500,000 to put Turkey first.

Michael T. Flynn, who went from the campaign trail to the White House as President Trump’s first national security adviser, filed papers this week acknowledging that he worked as a foreign agent last year representing the interests of the Turkish government in a dispute with the United States.

The President of the United States can't really obstruct justice. Maybe he can conspire to, but even then, I would be iffy.

Why? Because he's the chief executive and chief law enforcement officer of the United States, period. Crazy as he was, Nixon was correct on that point - whatever the President does is legal, at least to a point. Certainly with political decisions, such as the firing of Comey.

I can foresee corruption, straightforward "illegal" activities such as murder, robbery, etc., perhaps rising to the level of ordinary criminal conduct. He would still have to be impeached and removed from office to face such charges.

Because it is a political decision, though, no actual crime can flow from it - as we all use and understand that term. Now, likewise, although it says, "High crimes and misdemeanors" the Congress can, in actuality, remove the President for any reason - because that too is a purely political decision.

Johnson's impeachment was mostly political - I mean, his chief crime was being "not Lincoln" and his secondary crime was being a Southerner and his tertiary crime was being a Democrat. They objected to a personnel decision and impeached (and failed to convict by 1 vote) on that. Nonsense.

Clinton's impeachment was slightly less political, yet highly partisan. He was more or less impeached for conduct unbecoming the POTUS, but since that crime didn't really exist, they went with the obvious - perjury, subornation of perjury, again with the 'obstruction of justice', etc. Highly disreputable behavior and, as I said, ultimately a political decision.

Nixon's almost certain impeachment would have been more of a classic case built around abuse of power at the political level.

In this case, it is a bad test case because Comey was a horrifically bad FBI director - one of the worst in the agency's history and we've had some bad ones. So, the timing or reasoning are going to be deeper questions that may get lost in the, "Well, he needed to be fired, regardless, who cares what the reason is?"

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3, 2017, Comey confirmed that the FBI was “investigating potential ties between Trump Associates and the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.”113 Comey also confirmed that the FBI was coordinating with two sets of prosecutors – the Department of Justice’s National Security Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

So there are your 2 non-FBI investigations.

I also recognize there are going to be lots of arguments that non-FBI investigations were obstructed. As flimsy as the ones I have heard so far have been, I'm sure there are good arguments to be made.

My entire point to the op is that the paper being touted across yahoo and other liberal media sites....and cites here as "airtight" is woefully misleading and had to intentionally disregard very valid arguments in direct contradiction of their conclusion.

quote:

---

Guys, this isn't hard. Trump literally told Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of "this whole Russia thing".

---

This unfortunate statement of Trump's will definitely be used against him. Definitely. Whether it leads to Trump's removal is unknown.

quote:

---

I also recognize there are going to be lots of arguments that non-FBI investigations were obstructed. As flimsy as the ones I have heard so far have been, I'm sure there are good arguments to be made.

My entire point to the op is that the paper being touted across yahoo and other liberal media sites....and cites here as "airtight" is woefully misleading and had to intentionally disregard very valid arguments in direct contradiction of their conclusion.

---

even if [the] narrower view [of § 1505] were to prevail, Trump arguably endeavored to influence two other investigations that, as others observe, are more clearly covered by the statute: the pending grand jury investigation of Michael Flynn, and the pending congressional investigations of Russia’s role in the election. The former, in particular, seems potentially significant, given that Trump expressly mentioned Flynn during the Valentine’s Day tête-à-tête, telling Comey “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” So, there is at least some evidence that Trump made efforts to influence one or more potentially qualifying investigations, which could constitute one or more actus rei.

I was traveling the day comey was fired and at the airport they have cnn on everywhere.

all of this "obstruction" "Russia" hysteria then I walk by a tv a few hours later and it said "Trump: comey was bad at his job" I fricking lost it

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, of course they are. Is anyone in the Wash DC Establishment hiding their desire to Dump Trump? Not at all.

Have Senators Corker and McCain attempted to hide what they think of Trump? No.

This is blatantly and obviously a political attack on Trump whose purpose is to either remove him or make his re-election politically unlikely. They WILL twist and distort facts. They WILL use innovative and new interpretations of existing law. They will generate a report that finds a likelihood of some Trump wrongdoing.

This has been my opinion for a long time.

quote:

---

Whether it leads to Trump's removal is unknown.

---

Unless there is some really bad shite we don't yet know about I think there is practically zero chance Trump gets *removed* from office via impeachment.

I don't see too many Republican Senators who would vote to convict. Unless Trump keeps attacking some of them.