GoBills808 Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY IN THE NEW YORK TIMES: Trump’s Statements Are Not an Obstruction of Justice. Widespread howls erupted, including by editors of this paper, asserting that President Trump obstructed justice. But as distasteful as the president’s statements may be, they do not constitute an obstruction of justice. Indeed, if they did, virtually every communication between criminal defense lawyers and investigators would be a crime. . . . Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Trump intended an implied offer of continued employment in exchange for Mr. Comey’s dismissal of the Flynn investigation, it would be implausible for Mr. Comey to construe it as such. Mr. Comey was aware that he was an at-will employee who could be fired by the president at any time, for any reason. Indeed, when President Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in June 2016 — during the height of the F.B.I.’s investigation into Secretary Clinton’s private email server — it would have been similarly implausible for Mr. Comey to construe Mr. Obama’s pro-Clinton remarks as an implicit offer of continued employment, in exchange for dropping the Clinton investigation. Even though Mr. Comey dropped the investigation one month later, he presumably knew that although it would please both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, it would not insulate him from being fired. But even if one adopted an unprecedentedly broad conception of bribery, Mr. Trump’s purported statement still would not violate Section 1510. The statute is designed to preserve the free flow of information, prohibiting only acts that obstruct investigators’ access to information. Bribery of a potential witness, for example, is behavior prohibited by Section 1510. But telling the F.B.I. director that someone is a “good guy” and expressing the hope that an investigation will cease does not obstruct the free flow of information. Another, broader federal obstruction statute is Section 1505 of Title 18, but even this statute does not fit. Specifically, Section 1505 declares that anyone who “corruptly” endeavors to obstruct the proper administration of law “under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States” is guilty of a felony. Even putting aside the difficulty of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that President Trump’s brief and generalized words evinced the necessary “corrupt” mind-set, Section 1510 applies only to a “pending proceeding.” Read the whole thing. Also note that the Obama Administration made sure that Lois Lerner — who ran a corrupt, political effort to target political opponents using the power of the federal government — didn’t face charges. Did a 'professor of constitutional law' seriously try to equate a conversation between a defense attorney and investigators with Trump's conversation with Comey?
26CornerBlitz Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 @MarketWatch Here’s how impeachment works - and why Trump is safe for now https://t.co/xSaCHftnKf
GaryPinC Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) Another interesting article: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/gregg-jarrett-comeys-revenge-is-a-gun-without-powder/ar-BBBdLbm?li=BBnb7Kz "Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law. So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it. " "But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him. " "Either way, James Comey comes out a loser. No matter. The media will hail him a hero. After all, he gave them a good story that was better than the truth. " Edited May 17, 2017 by GaryPinC
Governor Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Why would he? Comey ignored the evidence and cleared her. What about Hillary? Will you tell me about Seth Rich?
Tiberius Posted May 17, 2017 Author Posted May 17, 2017 What if Trump leaves on this foreign trip and never comes back. He just flies to Moscow and lives with Putin or something
Governor Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 What if Trump leaves on this foreign trip and never comes back. He just flies to Moscow and lives with Putin or something From the looks of it, that trip might be cancelled. Trump doesn't have the "energy" to go. Guy is low energy.
grinreaper Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 From the looks of it, that trip might be cancelled. Trump doesn't have the "energy" to go. Guy is low energy. Gotta hand it to you. Ever since lyrbob left we've been lacking his special brand of ignorance coupled with pre pubescent snark. You make a very adequate replacement.
Chef Jim Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Gotta hand it to you. Ever since lyrbob left we've been lacking his special brand of ignorance coupled with pre pubescent snark. You make a very adequate replacement. Says the guy with his own brand of prepubescent snark.
Governor Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Gotta hand it to you. Ever since lyrbob left we've been lacking his special brand of ignorance coupled with pre pubescent snark. You make a very adequate replacement. I'm just here for the salty tears. Can you show me where I could find some?
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 I'm just here for the salty tears. Can you show me where I could find some? https://www.onwardtogether.org/
Governor Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 https://www.onwardtogether.org/ Lol. At least you're fun. The rest of this place is a factory of sadness.
meazza Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 First, you're a sick person. Second, they didn't help her as some claim. The daily constant discussion about emails while giving Trump free publicity by televising his speeches and letting him call in to shows did not help Clinton. The Comey letter of course was a significant factor, as shown by the change in poll numbers after it was released. He completed the investigation into Clinton, he should have been allowed to do the same with Trump. Trump ended Comey's role in that prematurely, but private citizen Comey may be the one to take him down. So if Clinton would have given televised speeches and called in, are you saying the media would have not given her the publicity? Or was it her choice to avoid showing herself in public because she tried to play the calculated game of letting him fail by letting him open his mouth?
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Lol. At least you're fun. The rest of this place is a factory of sadness. Now I've truly been called everything here.
row_33 Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Now I've truly been called everything here. has it happened yet, will he have to serve jail time?
PastaJoe Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 So if Clinton would have given televised speeches and called in, are you saying the media would have not given her the publicity? Or was it her choice to avoid showing herself in public because she tried to play the calculated game of letting him fail by letting him open his mouth? Neither's speeches were televised by the candidates. They both gave speeches; the media choose to televise Trump's whenever he gave them, helping his campaign get his message out. They didn't do the same with Clinton whenever she gave a speech. Thus the free publicity for Trump, and again, showing they didn't give Clinton preferential treatment. Just the opposite.
row_33 Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 Neither's speeches were televised by the candidates. They both gave speeches; the media choose to televise Trump's whenever he gave them, helping his campaign get his message out. They didn't do the same with Clinton whenever she gave a speech. Thus the free publicity for Trump, and again, showing they didn't give Clinton preferential treatment. Just the opposite. It was complicated... if the MSM took Trump seriously for one second, would it have changed in their coverage? would it have maggered? how long would Trump voters have stood in line to vote for him, would they have put up tents for 2 whole days? how about Hill? I assume many weren't going to wait more than 2 minutes out of their way if wavering, if it starting raining or getting a tad windy, forgettaboudit!!
B-Large Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) does anyone really think he's doing a better job than Pence would do? I'd rather dislike Pence for his hard right positions on issues than having Trump tweeting retarded nonsense for another 3.5 years. I respect Pence, even though I don't agree with some of the things he believes in. Edited May 17, 2017 by B-Large
row_33 Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 I'd rather dislike Pence for his hard right positions on issues than having Trump tweeting retarded nonsense for another 3.5 years. I respect Pence, even though I don't agree with some of the things he believes in. interesting things have happened when a Veep takes over...
B-Large Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 interesting things have happened when a Veep takes over... willing to roll the Dice, over and over again, to not have to witness DJT make us looks like idiots.
Recommended Posts