Yep. Trump fired the director of the FBI and told the media he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he did. A special prosecutor took over after that happened... Trump specifically will be under investigation now. All of his business dealings, every conversation he has ever had is on the table and Trump did that to himself.
Obstruction of Justice
- Thread starter Merge
- Start date
Yep. Trump fired the director of the FBI and told the media he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he did. A special prosecutor took over after that happened... Trump specifically will be under investigation now. All of his business dealings, every conversation he has ever had is on the table and Trump did that to himself.
How can anyone defend this President is really the question. In that press conference he was asked if he had tapes of the conversation. Trump answered Ill let you know in a short time but you won't like the answer. What kind of reply is that? You are the President of the US. If you have tapes, turn it over. Prove yourself correct. If you don't have recordings, say it. This I'll reveal it to you in a short time is utterly ridiculous.
The Senate committee had better subpoena the President for any recordings he may have as well as Mueller.
Now, knowing Trump there are only two possibilities:
1) He never had any recordings and those tweets referring to tapes were a lie.
2) He has recordings but they confirm that Comey was telling the truth.
Otherwise, he would have made a huge production out of producing the recording and proving Comey wrong and as a liar.
The Senate committee had better subpoena the President for any recordings he may have as well as Mueller.
Now, knowing Trump there are only two possibilities:
1) He never had any recordings and those tweets referring to tapes were a lie.
2) He has recordings but they confirm that Comey was telling the truth.
Otherwise, he would have made a huge production out of producing the recording and proving Comey wrong and as a liar.
Comey lies for starters:
On Hillary's email servers: "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." - Plenty would have and have said so.
Comey has repeatedly insisted — including in sworn testimony before Congress — that there was no evidence of obstruction of justice. But in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the chairmen of four House and Senate committees charge that "the facts of this investigation call these assertions into question." Translation: Comey may have lied to Congress as well as the public.
If Comey thought there was any obstruction of justice by Trump, wasn't he legally and ethically bound to make that known?
The way he handled himself over the last 12 months clearly indicates he is not stable and is just another political animal. Trump and Comey: Birds of a feather. Clearly.
On Hillary's email servers: "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." - Plenty would have and have said so.
Comey has repeatedly insisted — including in sworn testimony before Congress — that there was no evidence of obstruction of justice. But in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the chairmen of four House and Senate committees charge that "the facts of this investigation call these assertions into question." Translation: Comey may have lied to Congress as well as the public.
If Comey thought there was any obstruction of justice by Trump, wasn't he legally and ethically bound to make that known?
The way he handled himself over the last 12 months clearly indicates he is not stable and is just another political animal. Trump and Comey: Birds of a feather. Clearly.
Last edited:
Sorry I accidentally deleted the post while I tried to edit.
None of what you cited are lies.
First example is a judgment call. Most prosecutors would not have charged. Why cause you could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred. Those who argue that say they could charged is based upon that you can charge based upon probably cause which is a resonable suspicion. A few lower burden of proof to convict.
Second Example, I am not aware of. however, if I guess to what this is meant. Facts asserted by Hillary were not true or accurate. But that does not amount to obstruction or perjury. Again, those are two different things.
Third Example, you are talking about his actions or judgment. However, he did apparently tell other people in the FBI about what occurred.
Fourth Example is job performance. None are lies
Check on line for the Hillary Clinton support group near you. They will console you in your time of distress.
Unstable? Not reliable? You go too far. You can question his judgment on decisions he has made. That is a very fair criticism of Comey. But, calling him a liar or unstable is absolutely untrue.
Not many people except those on the fringe that are questioning Comey's veracity.
When did you become/what cuased you to become such a fan/defender of Comey???
I am consistent. You can be critical of his decisions. That is fair. I have been critical of his decisions on how he handled certain matters for sure.
However, that has no effect on his truthfulness. As a matter of fact, his desire to be so truthful led to some of his bad decisions like his decision to announce that the FBI was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton before the election.
Let me reiterate, his bad judgment calls are not mutually exclusive with being truthful. I can agree with you that he should have been fired for job performance. However. He was fired to interfere with the Flynn and Russian investigation and that is an impermissible reason and a crime.
However, that has no effect on his truthfulness. As a matter of fact, his desire to be so truthful led to some of his bad decisions like his decision to announce that the FBI was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton before the election.
Let me reiterate, his bad judgment calls are not mutually exclusive with being truthful. I can agree with you that he should have been fired for job performance. However. He was fired to interfere with the Flynn and Russian investigation and that is an impermissible reason and a crime.
We will see if Mueller has a different opinion of him. I bet he does, and that is more important than what any of us think.
I think when this investigation is over, we will have a clearer understanding of comeys actions. Ultimately I think he did what he had to do... but he has not been lying.
Which will ultimately bury him as President somewhere. He's like a walking perjury case waiting to happen with his antics. Look at some of the situations that dogged him even as a business owner. Now it gets ratcheted up a 100 levels as President, where there are actually protocols.
Oh, wait, we're supposed to let him learn on the job though according to Paul Ryan? LMAO!!
The guy seems driven by some combination of paranoia and narcissism. That's what fuels this energy he has and it's not changing at 70 years old. This is a square peg in a round hole situation. It's a race to what runs out first: His behavior or the 4-year term.
So you Trump haters are all saying that Comey (the head of the FBI) witnessed (first hand) obstruction and did nothing about it until he was fired?
Best case is he saw obstruction and knew it could never be prosecuted and so he leaked it so Trump could be tried in the court of MSM public opinion. That court has already convicted Trump and so what is the point of that?
And you want no-balls political-operative Comey to lead the FBI? Beautiful!
Best case is he saw obstruction and knew it could never be prosecuted and so he leaked it so Trump could be tried in the court of MSM public opinion. That court has already convicted Trump and so what is the point of that?
And you want no-balls political-operative Comey to lead the FBI? Beautiful!
Keep your head buried in the sand. Clearly there is nothing going on here. No obstruction, no Russian contacts, no Russian collusion. No investigation should even be started? You are a Trump apologist.
While Comey should have reported his contact with someone in the AG's office, he did apparently tell 4 people in the FBI. Moreover, it is the firing that triggers the obstruction. It is the firing that shows the intent on what could be termed ambiguous intent during that conversation.
Question is why did Trump fire Comey? Well, he answered that question by saying how he handled the Russian investigation. Do you care that the Russians have hacked and interfered with our election? What don't you guys see here? This is serious and you want to brush it under the rug.
cern, I am in no way a Trump supporter, but from my view:
1) Comey should have been fired and both parties had suggested doing that. You can question the timing, but whether Comey was there or not, the investigation was going to continue.
2) I do care that the Russians hacked and has anyone on this board ever said they didn't care?
3) What don't I see? There has been an ongoing investigation and all players are testifying....nothing has come out yet that rises to a level of criminality or impeachment. At this point, there were meetings with his campaign and Russian officials...nothing about collusion or criminal behavior. If that comes out; drop the hammer.
Regarding Comey, the article below supports the argument that he was both weak an incompetent as FBI Director. If this is true, there is as much if not more obstruction that occurred with Lynch and Clinton than is being proffered with Trump.
http://circa.com/politics/comey-pri...onfrontation-with-the-former-attorney-general
I know you guys want Trump out as President, but you can't make stuff up and come to conclusions prematurely to fit your narrative and expect to be taken seriously.
1) Comey should have been fired and both parties had suggested doing that. You can question the timing, but whether Comey was there or not, the investigation was going to continue.
2) I do care that the Russians hacked and has anyone on this board ever said they didn't care?
3) What don't I see? There has been an ongoing investigation and all players are testifying....nothing has come out yet that rises to a level of criminality or impeachment. At this point, there were meetings with his campaign and Russian officials...nothing about collusion or criminal behavior. If that comes out; drop the hammer.
Regarding Comey, the article below supports the argument that he was both weak an incompetent as FBI Director. If this is true, there is as much if not more obstruction that occurred with Lynch and Clinton than is being proffered with Trump.
http://circa.com/politics/comey-pri...onfrontation-with-the-former-attorney-general
I know you guys want Trump out as President, but you can't make stuff up and come to conclusions prematurely to fit your narrative and expect to be taken seriously.
How you get from point A to B with your conclusions is staggering.
The good news is you will never be a prosecutor or a judge.
You live in your own world of facts and arbitrary conclusions. There is not a shred of evidence that the Russians hacked our voting mechanisms. Your bitterness about the election results is apparent.
Here is a synopsis of Russian involvement from your beloved CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html
Interesting that the only one formally charged so far is Reality Leigh Winner, a Trump hater who stated she wanted "to “burn the White House down.”
The leaked info contained the following:
In a “declassified version of a highly classified assessment” release on Friday January 6, the U.S. intelligence community laid out its judgment that “Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election,”
At present, we do not know what that campaign consisted of and whether the DNC hacks were part of it.
You are now asking us to believe that Trump colluded with Putin to orchestrate the influence campaign.
Until we see some hard evidence around this, you are just wallowing in your world of hope that you will see the smoking gun.
If Comey felt the President had attempted to obstruct justice, he was duty bound to report and act upon it. Since he did not, there is no obstruction.
Firing Comey and then bragging about it to Lester Holt probably amounts to obstruction in some sense. But what are the damages? There are none. One week later the Special Council was appointed and the investigation continues.
Personally, I am setting the bar pretty high on the Russia investigation. I would like to see clear proof of collusion. Meetings in and of themselves are not enough to prove collusion.
Firing Comey and then bragging about it to Lester Holt probably amounts to obstruction in some sense. But what are the damages? There are none. One week later the Special Council was appointed and the investigation continues.
Personally, I am setting the bar pretty high on the Russia investigation. I would like to see clear proof of collusion. Meetings in and of themselves are not enough to prove collusion.
One additional point...if Trump was really trying to get Comey to stop going after Flynn and drop the investigation, you would think there would have been more than ONE conversation that was thinly veiled in suggestions (...i.e...."I hope..."). That's all that Comey could come up with...no follow-up, nothing? You can say a lot about Trump, but he's not passive.
Hate to break it to you but I do know how to conduct criminal investigations, how to prosecute them and how to try cases. I am sure I have just a little bit more experience than you. All of our intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia hacked into the DNC and attempted to influence the election in favor of Trump. It is not some 400 lbs guy in a dirty shirt like Trump likes to say. Why can't he admit it was the Russians? However, there is a pending criminal investigation of Russian hacking, Russian contacts with people in the Trump campaign. None of us know all the facts. However, there is smoke surrounding the Trump White House and it is incumbent to investigate. You want to ignore the smoke until the country is burned down.
Trump then puts his foot in the fire by having those conversations with Comey. Clearly, these conversation are inappropriate for a President to have at best. And at worst, he was trying to get Comey to drop the investigation. Trump then in my opinion confirms the intent of those conversations by firing Comey after he testified and admitting it was due to the Russian Investigation. This investigation will now start to drill deep into Trump and his contacts with the Russians to provide motive behind why he wanted this investigation to end. There is probable cause right now that he obstructed. However, when you shoot at the King, you better kill the King. You have to have a rock solid case to go after the President. That is why the investigation into Trump is needed. This will take some time. They will have to follow the money with his business dealings.
As to one other point that firing Comey does nothing to stop the investigation. This is not entirely true. The firing of Comey sends a message down to every single agent that you mess with the President and you you will be dealt with. It is a chilling effect upon anyone who is looking into this matter.
Again, whether or not firing Comey was justified on job performance is irrelevant. You cannot fire him for an impermissible reason like trying to obstruct an investigation. If he was so bad, why didn't he fire Comey as soon as he came into office like he did with every single US Attorney in the US? If you can't see there are issues that need to be investigated, you are blind.
As an American, every single one of us should want this issue investigated thoroughly. And not trying to make excuses for Trump or trying to to turn a blind eye. We are talking about the integrity of our country and the Presidency.
So we just ignore Trumps own words then? He literally told Lester Holt that he was thinking of Russia when he fired Comey. You can cite anything you want and guess that it was because of Comey's performance, but Trump admitted his reason to the less already. He also apparently told the Russians the same thing. Again, extraordinarily forgiving of you.
You are correct there is no public evidence of criminality... but there has been more than enough smoke to warrant this investigation.
None of us are making anything up. Based on the facts, Trump firing comey for reasons he said to the press is an attempt to obstruct.
Almost everyone attached to Trunp has lied about their connections to the Russians... we can only speculate as to why.
Now Christopher Ruddy, a friend of Trump says he is considering firing Mueller?
If that happens, would you still maintain your opinion?
You are correct there is no public evidence of criminality... but there has been more than enough smoke to warrant this investigation.
None of us are making anything up. Based on the facts, Trump firing comey for reasons he said to the press is an attempt to obstruct.
Almost everyone attached to Trunp has lied about their connections to the Russians... we can only speculate as to why.
Now Christopher Ruddy, a friend of Trump says he is considering firing Mueller?
If that happens, would you still maintain your opinion?
Wait, this makes no sense. So, if a murder happens but no one reports it, it is not a crime? Wrong. Moreover, Comey did indeed report it to people within the FBI.
Second, you say that you think that Trump's actions amounts to obstruction but there are no damages,. Thus no crime. You have a little knowledge of the law to make you dangerous. Damages are part of civil liability not criminal. If you obstruct, that is a crime all in itself even if you were not successful in the obstruction. Just the attempt. It's a crime.
You guys keep repeat the same talking points and putting words in other people's mouth's. no one is suggesting that the investigation stop. If there is criminality and so be it. It was challenging that?
You are the only ones jumping to conclusions though. There has been no evidence of collusion thus far. Several people in the intelligence community have even testified that they have seen none.
Comey's job performance is relevant. He was weak and it was bad. I wouldn't want someone that incompetent running an investigation no matter which side I was on it.
You are the only ones jumping to conclusions though. There has been no evidence of collusion thus far. Several people in the intelligence community have even testified that they have seen none.
Comey's job performance is relevant. He was weak and it was bad. I wouldn't want someone that incompetent running an investigation no matter which side I was on it.
Comey had his opportunity at the time to conclude in his professional judgment that obstruction had occurred. He chose not to act on the information so if I was on the jury I would conclude that what was said between them did not constitute a crime. After all, Comey is the Director of the FBI. He should know a crime when he sees one.
As for the firing, justice has not been obstructed. If anything, it continues with a greater sense of urgency. I understand your analogy that a failed attempt at obstruction can and possibly should be prosecuted. However, this is the President of the United States and I am willing to give the President greater latitude in this area. I understand you would not.
Another arbitrary conclusion and accusation that we don't want this investigated. Who has made excuses? Who is turning a blind eye? Who is not interested in the integrity of the of the office. (I think all presidents should have oral sex with interns in the oval office.)
I just think it nice to have evidence before you convict. At some point, when no evidence can be produced it begs the questions whether the investigation is being conducted for political reasons.
That is your opinion. Comey was a political appointee President Obama. When Trump starts firing investigators, then I will worry. The dramatic chilling effect you cite is doubtful. When you play at the level, getting move aside is part of the game.
Fascinating that Trump has sent out a trial balloon that he may fire the special prosecutor.
Didn't you post that Trump not done anything to warrant an investigation earlier in this thread?
From what has been said thus far, he isn't under investigation...only some of those associated with his campaign. If there is criminality found with those people or if it ends up being connected to Trump than let the chips fall where they may. I've never suggested an investigation of anyone should be halted. Keep trying to twist words though.
Based on what has been presented, I don't think so. I don't have a line of sight into any other information, nor do you that could lead otherwise.
And this is the reason why I believe you have your head in the sand. Based upon what we all know right now, there is more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation into Trump for obstruction.
There is probable cause right now for obstruction. PC is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. That is enough to charge nevermond enough to warrant an investigation.
The obstruction of justice claim seems dubious based on Comey's testimony and actions.
Trump should be investigated on any possible collusion with Russia, that's the much bigger issue. Should that be done by a special investigator like Mueller, who only days before being named special investigator was meeting with Trump about becoming head of the FBI and is subject to the whims of the president or should it be done by a bipartisan congressional committee in which Trump has no control over?
Isn't that always the case as well with a special prosecutor that can be fired by the president??
