Obstruction of Justice

[Merge]

Thoughts?

Appears to me that Comey just provided grounds for an obstruction charge.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

To be fair to Trump, if the testimony by Comey is true, I doubt Trump understands that what he did was against the law... but that is exactly why it is too dangerous to have someone like him as President. He thinks he is a dictator and doesn't understand the difference.

 

[SPK145]

Wouldn't it be a he said/she said with two unreliable, unstable parties in Comey and Trump?

Wouldn't that charge also apply to Loretta Lynch?

And didn't Comey perjure himself with his earlier testimony?

Too many clowns involved in our government from all sides.

 

[Merge]

Wouldn't it be a he said/she said with two unreliable, unstable parties in Comey and Trump?

Context on Comey being unreliable and unstable? Not sure Mueller shares your view, but yes this would require further evidence... I just think Comey intentionally laid it out the way he did for the public to see.

Wouldn't that charge also apply to Loretta Lynch?

Don't think so. Not saying what she did is ok, but asking him to call it something else is not an attempt to impede or stop the investigation.

And didn't Comey perjure himself with his earlier testimony?

Don't think so. I had to google what you were talking about but from what I saw he was asked about the DOJ requesting he stop an investigation and he said that has not happened. He was not talking about a conversation with thePresident.

 

[Section112]

I can't stand Trump but it's not obstruction of justice. It's stupid and disrespectful to how our government is set-up. Trump should have never had the conversation as well. But it's not obstruction of justice. Saying you "hope" that the Flynn matter can go away leads everything to be predicated on what those words mean. Saying stuff like "when the President says the word hope he is telling you what to do" won't fly in a court of law and everyone knows that. And that assumes there are tapes and that was in fact said. Anything beyond that is he said/he said. And Comey should have not stayed in that room alone if he thought he was in a compromising position. And Sessions should have never left the room to allow that to happen. Lots of blame to go around no matter how stupid Trump is. Is it distasteful. Absolutely and more.

Bottom line is Trump is a dolt and he has still not figured out that running a government is way different than running a business when you are the head of that business. He is not in Trumpland anymore and he just can't seem to figure that out. It's just another big waste of time and resources it's just getting in the way of getting anything done for the American people. Whether a Dem or Repub gets elected the other party attacks and tries to stymie any progress. This is the same, but the big difference is Trump keeps making it way worse with his stupid actions and tweets and the constant screw ups by his cabinet.

I'm still hopeful we at least get some tax reform from this messed up administration at least, but am not holding my breath.

 

[Merge]

Saying you "hope" that the Flynn matter can go away leads everything to be predicated on what those words mean.

A couple quick points.

It wasn't "I hope the Flynn matter can go away" it was "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go" It is less ambiguous phrasing that Trump wanted Comey to end the investigation.

Also, a reporter has pointed out that there was a case where "hope" was used specifically in an obstruction case.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/04/072601P.pdf

"In McDonald’s case, the district court based the obstruction of justice enhancement on: (1) Callahan’s testimony that, when she visited McDonald while he was incarcerated, he showed her a note urging her not to say anything about the knife; and (2) the letter McDonald wrote to Callahan which stated in part, “I hope and pray to God you did not say anything about a weapon when you were in Iowa. Because it will make it worse on me and you even if they promised not to prosecute you[.]”

 

[Section112]

A couple quick points.

It wasn't "I hope the Flynn matter can go away" it was "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go" It is less ambiguous phrasing that Trump wanted Comey to end the investigation.

Also, a reporter has pointed out that there was a case where "hope" was used specifically in an obstruction case.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/04/072601P.pdf

"In McDonald’s case, the district court based the obstruction of justice enhancement on: (1) Callahan’s testimony that, when she visited McDonald while he was incarcerated, he showed her a note urging her not to say anything about the knife; and (2) the letter McDonald wrote to Callahan which stated in part, “I hope and pray to God you did not say anything about a weapon when you were in Iowa. Because it will make it worse on me and you even if they promised not to prosecute you[.]”

Not buying it and two very different cases. One case is someone that is already incarcerated and trying to prove innocence and not implicate someone else. The other is a private conversation. Way different. And do you really think a prosecutor is going to take down the President of the United States on those words? In the words of Mr. Comey "no prosecutor would take that case" unless they were a very partisan prosecutor. And they were alone in a room together. Sorry not buying it and not a relevant example at all. But keep copying and pasting stuff you read without actually taking a step back to see if it makes sense. Like I said Trump is an idiot but this will not do him in. There could be 1,000 other things but not this.

 

[Merge]

two very different cases.

Agreed, two very different cases but I don't think Mueller would have allowed Comey to say what he said today unless they both felt it was necessary that the public know what was said. To what end is just speculation.

 

[shu09]

Agreed, two very different cases but I don't think Mueller would have allowed Comey to say what he said today unless they both felt it was necessary that the public know what was said. To what end is just speculation.

So the special prosecutor is influencing or has control of witnesses?

 

[HALL85]

Not buying it and two very different cases. One case is someone that is already incarcerated and trying to prove innocence and not implicate someone else. The other is a private conversation. Way different. And do you really think a prosecutor is going to take down the President of the United States on those words? In the words of Mr. Comey "no prosecutor would take that case" unless they were a very partisan prosecutor. And they were alone in a room together. Sorry not buying it and not a relevant example at all. But keep copying and pasting stuff you read without actually taking a step back to see if it makes sense. Like I said Trump is an idiot but this will not do him in. There could be 1,000 other things but not this.

Agreed...today was a nothing-burger. Partisan types like Merge got enough to desperately try to hang on to their talking points. Trump continues to look like someone who is learning on the job and yes, an idiot. Both parties continue to focus on things that have nothing to do with moving the ball forward.

 

[Section112]

So the special prosecutor is influencing or has control of witnesses?

That is problematic and something most will not notice. I guess now the American people know Trump did something that was inappropriate but they also knew that before they elected him too. It will change nothing and nothing will continue to get done. Who loses of course the American people...

 

[Merge]

So the special prosecutor is influencing or has control of witnesses?

Not influencing but Mueller does have control over the investigation.
If Mueller did not want Comey to testify, he wouldn't have.

 

[Piratz]

Trump tipped his hand a bit a few weeks ago when he drew a line between himself and his campaign with regard to what was known about the Russian hacking (read Flynn). If those underlings give him up for immunity, then you have a case where you could nail Trump on lying. That's a loooooong way away.

Now, as far as today, did Trump try to interfere and stop Comey's investigation into Flynn? Yes. Did Trump try to interfere and stop Comey's investigation into the Trump Campaigns contacts/knowledge of the Russian hack? Yes. Trump being Trump. That's what Trump does. That's what most CEO's and power players in business do. But the government is not business and Trump will never learn that. Someday we'll get a sensible person that can run th

Does every President attempt to influence? Yes. Is that an obstruction of justice based on what we heard today? No, I don't think it raises to that level. It's a few miles down the road, but not quite there yet. The firing of the Comey could, but a lot more meat would have to be served.

I do believe Trump fired the FBI Director because the Director would not stop an investigation into the President's associates, which is obstruction, overstep, and would have the Founding Fathers on alert. But you have to get that above the legal hurdle outlining such. Right now, where's the beef?

BTW, I do hope Trump has tapes, lol.

 

[cernjSHU]

Wouldn't it be a he said/she said with two unreliable, unstable parties in Comey and Trump?

Wouldn't that charge also apply to Loretta Lynch?

And didn't Comey perjure himself with his earlier testimony?

Too many clowns involved in our government from all sides.

Here is the difference.

Trump's request sounds like he is trying to have Comey drop the investigation. He asked if whether Comey wants to stay in the job. Trump asks Comey for his loyalty which in of itself is inappropriate but not illegal. Trump's words although sounding like he is obstructing an investigation, but that alone is not sufficient. Trump's intention is not completely clear from those words alone is just not enough to go after the President.

However, Trump then fires Comey a couple of weeks after this meeting when the investigation is not dropped. Once he fired Comey for not doing what he requested, that is evidence of Trump's intention of interfering with the Russian investigation with Flynn. Moreover, Trump even admitted in an interview that the reason he fired Comey was not the initial reasons in the letter. But it was because of how he handled the Russian investigation. So now you have his words coupled with his actions. The trigger is really the firing of Comey which shows his intention of what he said previously to Comey. This is prima facie case of obstruction. Now is this enough to convict? The prosecutor will now look into the contacts of the Trump campaign and Russia to further bolster their case. If there is more of a connection, the President will be charged. There is enough to charge, but that is not enough when you go after a President. You have to have a clear case to convict in order for this case to be brought.

There is a difference between a prima facie case where you have enough to charge but Prosecutors do not like to have just that evidence. You want enough to convict. That is what the investigation will now be compiling.

IS there anyone who thinks that Comey is not telling the truth? You can question his judgement but I don't think you can question his honesty.

The charge does not apply to Lorretta Lynch. What interference did she do? The urging of using the word "matter" instead of "investigation?" That does not even come close.

Btw, perjury is the most difficult case for a prosecutor to prove. Just because one testifies differently from one time to another, does not make it perjury. Many reasons for that to happen. So no, Comey did not perjure himself.

 

[Piratz]

All of those dots connect together, but the burden to prove it above circumstantial, Executive Privilege, and so on is a tough one though. Look at just this thread and what's come up already with Lynch and so forth.

Trump has always struck me as a classic BSer, fairly sloppy and loose lipped, and he's a novice in the government, so there could be something the more digging that goes on, I suppose. They got that with both Nixon and Clinton. Took years.

 

[Merge]

Agreed...today was a nothing-burger. Partisan types like Merge got enough to desperately try to hang on to their talking points. Trump continues to look like someone who is learning on the job and yes, an idiot. Both parties continue to focus on things that have nothing to do with moving the ball forward.

I want Trump out of office as quickly as possible, so it very well may be just my blue colored glasses.... but to say today was a nothing burger is also a little crazy. How many times in history has something like this happened?

He asked if Comey wanted his job, he asked for loyalty, he asked that the Flynn case be dropped, he asked that Comey tell the public he wasn't under investigation and got fired when he didn't comply. That is nothing to you?

 

[cernjSHU]

All of those dots connect together, but the burden to prove it above circumstantial, Executive Privilege and so on is a tough one though. Look at just this thread and what's come up already with Lynch and so forth..

Circumstantial proof much of the time is better than direct proof. In a case like this, you will have to rely on circumstantial proof. As an example of circumstantial proof. No one sees a girl get killed. But an hour before she was found dead, a witness sees Defendant with the victim. An hour after victim is found, police see defendant with blood spatter which turns out to be GF's blood on him and matches her DNA. That is very powerful proof that Defendant killed Victim yet it is all circumstantial.

 

[HALL85]

I want Trump out of office as quickly as possible, so it very well may be just my blue colored glasses.... but to say today was a nothing burger is also a little crazy. How many times in history has something like this happened?

He asked if Comey wanted his job, he asked for loyalty, he asked that the Flynn case be dropped, he asked that Comey tell the public he wasn't under investigation and got fired when he didn't comply. That is nothing to you?

What did we learn today that we already didn't know? Nothing. Hence, the nothing burger.

At least you're honest about wanting Trump out of office. But based on what we saw today, that is not happening.

 

[Merge]

What did we learn today that we already didn't know? Nothing. Hence, the nothing burger.

Before today we did not have the ex director of the FBI under oath saying that Trump asked him to stop going after Flynn, something Trump had denied to the media.

I wonder how many "nothing burgers" occurred in the 2 years of the watergate investigation. We are not very far into this investigation. I really do believe comey laid the ground work for an eventual obstruction charge. Still much to be done before that happens though.

 

[HALL85]

Before today we did not have the ex director of the FBI under oath saying that Trump asked him to stop going after Flynn, something Trump had denied to the media.

I wonder how many "nothing burgers" occurred in the 2 years of the watergate investigation. We are not very far into this investigation. I really do believe comey laid the ground work for an eventual obstruction charge. Still much to be done before that happens though.

That's not what Comey said, no matter how hard you try. You're doing the apples versus oranges comparison with Watergate.

Like I said before, nothing new was discussed today that we already had heard from Comey and others. Who knows where this investigation leads, but thus far there is nothing that will lead to indictments or impeachment.

 

[Merge]

That's not what Comey said, no matter how hard you try.

That is what he said.
Sorry, if you are investigating something at your work and your CEO calls you in and says I hope you can find a way to stop investigating... you know damn well what that means. Your next step is to cover your ass which is exactly what comey did.

nothing new was discussed today that we already had heard from Comey and others.

Only because we saw his comments yesterday, but yes... comey saying Trump asked him to stop investigating Flynn is confirmation of a rumor. Not sure why you think that's not new or important. It's both.

 

[HALL85]

That is what he said.
Sorry, if you are investigating something at your work and your CEO calls you in and says I hope you can find a way to stop investigating... you know damn well what that means. Your next step is to cover your ass which is exactly what comey did.




Only because we saw his comments yesterday, but yes... comey saying Trump asked him to stop investigating Flynn is confirmation of a rumor. Not sure why you think that's not new or important. It's both.

It's not new, nor important. Didn't you find it odd that Comey admitted that he said and did nothing after that conversation? From a seasoned FBI Director? Comey lost even more credibility today with his admitted leaking of info. Both parties wanted him out and he showed why today.

 

[Muggsy Blue]

LOL

 

[Merge]

It's not new, nor important. Didn't you find it odd that Comey admitted that he said and did nothing after that conversation? From a seasoned FBI Director? Comey lost even more credibility today with his admitted leaking of info. Both parties wanted him out and he showed why today.

Did nothing? What are you talking about? He did exactly what he should have done. He created a paper trail, he spoke with his team at the FBI... what do you think he should have done, in the middle of an investigation into the trump campaign?

You may think he lost credibility, but he said he leaked the info just so they could get a special prosecutor... which they did. Just leads me to believe that he knew how this would play out once he decided to ignore the presidents request for loyalty.

 

[HALL85]

Did nothing? What are you talking about? He did exactly what he should have done. He created a paper trail, he spoke with his team at the FBI... what do you think he should have done, in the middle of an investigation into the trump campaign?

You may think he lost credibility, but he said he leaked the info just so they could get a special prosecutor... which they did. Just leads me to believe that he knew how this would play out once he decided to ignore the presidents request for loyalty.

Did you see his testimony? He essentially said that He should have done something. He said he should've had the "strength"... seems odd that a man and his position is weak all the sudden. And that is exactly why both parties were calling for his head.

 

[Merge]

I did watch and he was talking about the strength to stand up to the president... that doesn't mean he didn't do anything.

Again, you said he did nothing. What should he have done differently?

 

[HALL85]

I did watch and he was talking about the strength to stand up to the president... that doesn't mean he didn't do anything.

Again, you said he did nothing. What should he have done differently?

How about start by telling Trump right then and there exactly how you feel? Now answer me. If Comey is so credible why did both parties want him gone?

 

[SPK145]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/

James Comey's testimony doesn't make the case for impeachment or obstruction against Donald Trump
Jonathan Turley, Opinion columnist Published 6:48 p.m. ET June 7, 2017 | Updated 7:39 p.m. ET June 7, 2017


In his opening statement, former FBI director James Comey said Trump requested 'loyalty' and urged him to drop the FBI's Michael Flynn investigation. USA TODAY

The president's actions may have been wildly inappropriate, but they are not enough to establish a strong criminal case.

The release of former FBI director James Comey's testimony on Wednesday was received with the same breathless reactions that have long characterized coverage of the Russian investigation. CNN ran comments that the Comey testimony was nothing short of the Watergate tapes. The desire for some indictable or impeachable offense by President Trump has distorted the legal analysis to an alarming degree. Analysts seem far too thrilled by the possibility of a crime by Trump. The legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie — or even a strong — case for obstruction.

It is certainly true that if Trump made these comments, his conduct is wildly inappropriate. However, talking like Tony Soprano does not make you Tony Soprano. Trump is not the first president to express dissatisfaction with an investigation by the Justice Department. Former president Bill Clinton made clear his own dissatisfaction with the investigations of his administration under then-Attorney General Janet Reno. It is no surprise that Trump wanted to see these investigations end. Indeed, he had a virtual hashtag to that effect.

The crime of obstruction of justice has not been defined as broadly as suggested by commentators. While there are a couple of courts with more expansive interpretations, the crime is generally linked to obstructing a pending proceeding as opposed to an investigation. Most courts have rejected the application of obstruction provisions to mere investigations. The manual used by federal prosecutors makes that same distinction. Even if a prosecutor was able to extend the definition of obstruction, there would remain the need to show that Trump sought to “corruptly” influence the investigation. Trump telling Comey that Michael Flynn is “a good guy,” and that he hoped Comey would let the matter drop is hardly a “cancer,” let alone a crime, growing on the presidency.

Flynn had just resigned the day before Trump allegedly asked Comey whether he could now drop the investigation of Flynn. Trump had been told by Comey that he is not under investigation (three alleged confirmations by Comey that are equally inappropriate). Trump could say he felt Flynn had suffered enough. For a defense lawyer, a charge of obstruction on these facts would be a target-rich environment.

Sally Yates testified like 'Alice in Wonderland' at congressional hearing
Donald Trump ethics waivers flood the swamp with conflicts of interest
The mere fact that Trump asked to speak to Comey alone would not implicate the president in obstruction. Trump could argue that he sought to exclude Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others who were facing calls for recusal in the investigation. He could claim that he viewed this as a personal inquiry on behalf of a friend. He was, of course, wrong. Dead wrong in asking such a grossly improper question. However, to treat the desire of a private conversation as inescapable evidence of obstruction is to deny the obvious defenses in the case.

In the end, a prosecutor should never seek to indict a president absent a lead-pipe cinch of a case. This is no lead-pipe cinch. Of course, there is also the problem of actually indicting a sitting president if there was a crime and evidence to fit it. Many academics believe that a sitting president cannot be indicted. It remains an open question. After all, judges have faced indictment before impeachments. Yet, the president remains the head of the executive branch handling such prosecutions.

The proper course is for a president to be impeached and removed before any prosecution. It is no gift to a president. Impeachments are not subject to the rules of evidence or even the criminal code. Presidents can face a much broader array of evidentiary demands with far less protection under due process rules. A president can also be impeached for acts that are not technically crimes. Abuse of office is a classic example. However, analogies to Watergate show little understanding of those articles of impeachment. The first article against President Nixon was an obstruction allegation, but it was expressly linked to actual and serious crimes, including the criminal break-in at the Watergate. The article specifically listed an array of personal actions taken by Nixon and his subordinates to procure false statements, obstruct investigators, and “to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.”

Ironically, those who want a criminal charge on this record are committing the very offense that they accuse Trump of committing: disregarding the law to achieve their desired goal. It would be a highly dangerous interpretation to allow obstruction charges at this stage. If prosecutors can charge people at the investigation stage of cases, a wide array of comments or conduct could be criminalized. It is quite common to have such issues arise early in criminal cases. Courts have limited the crime precisely to avoid this type of open-ended crime where prosecutors could threaten potential witnesses with charges unless they cooperated.

We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless ... or simply being Donald Trump.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

 

[Merge]

How about start by telling Trump right then and there exactly how you feel? Now answer me. If Comey is so credible why did both parties want him gone?

If he says that right then and there, he gets fired and Trump gets away with it. Instead he stays on, leaves a paper trail and makes the talks public.

Politicians wanted him gone because that was typical political nonsense from both sides placing blame elsewhere.

 

[Merge]

Even if a prosecutor was able to extend the definition of obstruction, there would remain the need to show that Trump sought to “corruptly” influence the investigation

And we will see if Mueller thinks it's there.

The facts are:
Trump tells comey he "hopes" he will stop investigating Flynn. Comey refuses
Trump tells comey to remove the cloud of the Russia investigation
Comey refuses
Comey is fired
Trump tells the Russians that will take the heat off the Russian investigation.
Trump tells Lester Holt that he was thinking of the Russia investigation when firing Comey contradicting the official statements.

I mean... I'm not saying it's clearly obstruction, I'm just saying that if his name were Hillary or Barack, a few of you on this board would be calling for them to be removed from office.

 

[HALL85]

If he says that right then and there, he gets fired and Trump gets away with it. Instead he stays on, leaves a paper trail and makes the talks public.

Politicians wanted him gone because that was typical political nonsense from both sides placing blame elsewhere.

Wrong...if he says that right then and there and Trump fires him, he has the immediate case for impeachment.

You think Comey was competent the way he handled things the past year?

 

[Merge]

Wrong...if he says that right then and there and Trump fires him, he has the immediate case for impeachment.

So Comey fired in January with no paper trail or discussions with other members of the FBI - immediate impeachment

Comey fired after building a paper trail and discussing the inappropriate talks with members of his team - nothing burger

Are you serious? Come on...

Comey is much smarter than you are giving him credit for. He has thought this through.

 

[HALL85]

So Comey fired in January with no paper trail or discussions with other members of the FBI - immediate impeachment

Comey fired after building a paper trail and discussing the inappropriate talks with members of his team - nothing burger

Are you serious? Come on...

Comey is much smarter than you are giving him credit for. He has thought this through.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[cernjSHU]

Wrong...if he says that right then and there and Trump fires him, he has the immediate case for impeachment.

You think Comey was competent the way he handled things the past year?

You can question Comey's judgment, i.e. The way he handled the Clinton emails especially his October surprise and not informing the second in command at the AG's office about what occurred between him and Trump. That is fair criticism.

But I don't think you can question his truthfulness. Whether Comey should have handled Trump's request another way is really irrelevant. It is the fact that Comey stated concerning Trump. Does anyone question Comey's veracity?

 

[HALL85]

You can question Comey's judgment, i.e. The way he handled the Clinton emails especially his October surprise and not informing the second in command at the AG's office about what occurred between him and Trump. That is fair criticism.

But I don't think you can question his truthfulness. Whether Comey should have handled Trump's request another way is really irrelevant. It is the fact that Comey stated concerning Trump. Does anyone question Comey's veracity?

It is relevant as to his competency and ability to do the job. And what about the whole discussion that came out yesterday regarding Loretta Lynch? He did nothing with that either. Let's face it, he did a poor job over the past year or so. Is he truthful? I don't know how you can say yes with certainty.

 

[Section112]

And we will see if Mueller thinks it's there.

The facts are:
Trump tells comey he "hopes" he will stop investigating Flynn. Comey refuses
Trump tells comey to remove the cloud of the Russia investigation
Comey refuses
Comey is fired
Trump tells the Russians that will take the heat off the Russian investigation.
Trump tells Lester Holt that he was thinking of the Russia investigation when firing Comey contradicting the official statements.

I mean... I'm not saying it's clearly obstruction, I'm just saying that if his name were Hillary or Barack, a few of you on this board would be calling for them to be removed from office.

Those are only the facts if you believe Comey. Some of those "facts" were part of private on on one conversations (he said he said). Until those facts are corroborated (tapes?) we have a definite non starter. Comey should have never let himself be the only one in the room as well as Sessions too. So it's his word against the Presidents.

 

[chickenbox]

It's frequently pointed out that Trump is (or at least was) not under investigation. Why in the hell wouldn't Trump be under investigation?! What more would this guy need to do vis a vis Russia to suggest it might be worth taking a hard look at him?

 

[HALL85]

It's frequently pointed out that Trump is (or at least was) not under investigation. Why in the hell wouldn't Trump be under investigation?! What more would this guy need to do vis a vis Russia to suggest it might be worth taking a hard look at him?

Because maybe he hasn't done anything to warrant an investigation???

 

[SPK145]

It's frequently pointed out that Trump is (or at least was) not under investigation. Why in the hell wouldn't Trump be under investigation?! What more would this guy need to do vis a vis Russia to suggest it might be worth taking a hard look at him?

Probably just semantics. While he personally and individually may not be under investigation, if his close associates are, it's the same as him, no?

 

[cernjSHU]

It's frequently pointed out that Trump is (or at least was) not under investigation. Why in the hell wouldn't Trump be under investigation?! What more would this guy need to do vis a vis Russia to suggest it might be worth taking a hard look at him?

At the time, there was no evidence with regard to Trump personally and Russia. However, people around Trump were being looked at. So, it is true that the investigation was not on Trump - Yet. This is how investigations start. Bridgegate started with an investigation with the Gov's staff. That led to what facts then could implicate Christie. The investigation apparently did not come up with enough evidence against Christie. Lots of smoke and some evidence, but not enough.

Similarly, the Russian investigation is surrounding Trump but not Trump personally, at that time. Now, the investigation could then spill into Trump personally. This talking point that Trump was vindicated is just simply not true.

However, I am pretty sure that an investigation has been launched by the special prosecutor into Trump personally now. If not, he would not be dong his job.

 

[Piratz]

What Comey did is put the speculation and leaks to a piece of evidence as testimony under oath. It was more formality than anything else. While I hear you on the circumstantial, cernj, there's not enough here yet.

**Do I have a problem with the President of the United States firing an FBI Director who does not swear loyalty to him by shutting down an investigation into his cabinet members who maybe have acted improperly with a foreign nation? Yes, I do.

**Do I have a problem with individuals in our government who at the least may have knowingly benefited from a foreign nation's cyberattack on our country - or at the most colluded in it - and did nothing about it? Yes, I do.

**And forget Trump, Comey, whomever for a second. How about the fact that we are still not hammering Russia?!?! Giving them back their American resorts now? Lmao! Do I have a problem that our government is still not going after Russia for what they did? Yes I do.

I think most do object on all of these. We'll see what the investigation finds and then how they can address it from there. Yesterday was not grounds for anything, it just locked in what we already knew. And surely not vindication for Trump.

Comey was tangled into two difficult situations because we had two problematic candidates running for President and all of this going down within a few months of election and power changeover. I do think he was consistent in at least trying to stick to the investigations of both in his own odd way though; despite the pressure from both Lynch and Trump, and I'm sure many others.