It appears Trump is offically under investigation for obstruction

[TLK Valentine]

Do you mean all of our intelligence agencies, the Justice Department, the House Oversight Committee, and the House Intelligence Committee?

Exactly how much control would Republicans need to have in our federal government before you would stop dismissing everything as those dern Democrats causing trouble?

Republicans have it all; learn it still isn't enough. Film at 11.

 

[bhsmte]

Not exactly. Comey also said that he did take it as an order but did not do it.
I think that Trump making a point of speaking with Comey privately rather than with the AG or DSG present or going through the AG's office makes his (request) suspicious. Especially the 'loyalty' dinner. At that point Trump should have known that to meet with Comey alone, under these circumstances, was inappropriate. So why did he do it the second time?

Because trump crossed the line of what is deemed appropriate communication in the last sevsral decades between president and fbi director. Here is where comey would get clobbered in cross exmination; if he is claiming it was an order, why did he state no one told hik to stop any investigations? An orderbis clearly being told to stop. It was only after comey was fired, that his interpretation went from; no one ordered hin to stop, to stating he took it as an order. For someone who was a former fed prosecutor, deputy attorney general and head of the fbi, comey came accross to me as acting like a complete novice and forgoing options he had to act. I think comey is an honest man and to the point of even using the term coward in how he described his own behavior.

 

[Hank77]

Here is where comey would get clobbered in cross exmination; if he is claiming it was an order, why did he state no one told hik to stop any investigations?

If I remember correctly he was being questioned about the "I hope" statement. He was asked if he was told to stop the Flynn investigation by the "I hope" statement. Comey said twice, "not in words" or very close to that. That is like saying, "Not in so many words, he didn't"

It was only after comey was fired, that his interpretation went from; no one ordered hin to stop, to stating he took it as an order.

I don't think so, that is clearly why he wrote the memo that he did immediately after this meeting. He did take it that is what Trump was trying to get him to do.
The thing is that he didn't have proof, there wasn't anyone else present.
He went to Sessions the very next morning and told Sessions not to leave him alone with the President again. Sessions testified to that. So clearly he did feel that he was being pressured into stopping the investigation into Flynn.

 

[whatbogsends]

Ok. Yet, the only crime you mentioned above was the unmasking of Flynn's name.

FYI, lying on government forms for security clearance, is, in of itself, a crime. Kushner omitted information regarding his contacts with Russia on his clearance form. Sessions lied about his contacts with Russia during his confirmation hearing (i'm not sure if that's technically a crime, but it is, at the very least, a serious ethical issue). To say that the unmasking of Flynn is the only crime we know about (you technically said "you (dgiharris) mentioned", but it seemed that you were saying there have been no crimes have been committed related to Trump campaign/administration and Russia.

Then we had Comey at the last hearing telling us that MUCH of what the media reports is false. lol yet, that is what they are investigating? What killed me is it came up that Trump was never under investigation, and they - the politicians - knew that. You notice they give a very different impression in front of the cameras?

That's not exactly what he said. He indicated that the media "often got it wrong", but "getting it wrong" is not necessarily "what they report is false". He really didn't go into detail, but it seemed to me that he was saying they often drew incorrect conclusions or speculation about the future rather than having the facts of what they were reporting be outright false.

It was mentioned in the hearings that Comey told Trump more than once he wasn't under investigation. The rumor mills in the press were flying around, and Trump asked him to clear that up more than once. Comey didn't do it.

One of the things Comey pointed out when this was discussed in the hearings was that if he had come out and said "Trump is not under investigation" and that changed, that he would then be in the position of having to announce "Trump is under investigation" if/when that changed. He indicated that the professional response was to not speak to the subject.

 

[bhsmte]

If I remember correctly he was being questioned about the "I hope" statement. He was asked if he was told to stop the Flynn investigation by the "I hope" statement. Comey said twice, "not in words" or very close to that. That is like saying, "Not in so many words, he didn't"

I don't think so, that is clearly why he wrote the memo that he did immediately after this meeting. He did take it that is what Trump was trying to get him to do.
The thing is that he didn't have proof, there wasn't anyone else present.
He went to Sessions the very next morning and told Sessions not to leave him alone with the President again. Sessions testified to that. So clearly he did feel that he was being pressured into stopping the investigation into Flynn.

then comey blows up his own testimony, when he testified in may, that he was never ordered to stopban investigation. This is why, a skilled attorney would devour him on cross and his credibility as a witness, would be diminished.

 

[Hank77]

then comey blows up his own testimony, when he testified in may, that he was never ordered to stopban investigation. This is why, a skilled attorney would devour him on cross and his credibility as a witness, would be diminished.

I think that you are referring to the May 3, 2017 testimony where Comey says,

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that "we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it." But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

If so he was answering these specific questions......

HIRONO: So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?


COMEY: In theory, yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

So Comey was asked if the AG or anyone in the DoJ had ever asked and he said not in his experience. The President is neither the AG or an official in the DoJ.
If this isn't what you are referring to could you please give me a hint.

 

[bhsmte]

I think that you are referring to the May 3, 2017 testimony where Comey says,

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that — without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that "we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it." But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

If so he was answering these specific questions......

HIRONO: So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?


COMEY: In theory, yes.

HIRONO: Has it happened?

So Comey was asked if the AG or anyone in the DoJ had ever asked and he said not in his experience. The President is neither the AG or an official in the DoJ.
If this isn't what you are referring to could you please give me a hint.

That was one line of questioning by one senator. Another asked him, if trump asked him to stop the russian investigation and comey replied no. One could say, trump wanted comey to halt the flynn investigation, but wouldnt the russian investigation be much broader and include flynn?

 

[Hank77]

One could say, trump wanted comey to halt the flynn investigation, but wouldnt the russian investigation be much broader and include flynn?

Maybe. idk. The memo was written specifically about the Flynn investigation. It, the Flynn investigation started the whole thing so it is definitely connected, or over lapping.

I hate to see all this mess, the country doesn't need it, but...still to me, it's all very interesting just the same.

 

[KCfromNC]

Republicans have it all; learn it still isn't enough. Film at 11.

No one knew running a country could be so complicated.

 

[NotreDame]

I am not familiar with the vagaries of your legal system, but if Trump admits, on video, that he fired the FBI director, specifically to make the Trump/Russia thing go away, how has he not sought to obstruct that investigation...?

Are you referring to, once again, the federal crime of obstruction of justice?

If yes, then perhaps you'd know the answer to this question if you actually knew which of the 6 federal obstruction of justice statutes are potentially applicable to these facts. Requesting someone demonstrate to you "how he has not sought to obstruction that investigation," rests upon the default assumption Trump "has...sought to obstruct that investigation." Here's a novel suggestion. Rather than someone inform you of how President Trump hasn't implicated any of the 6 federal obstruction of justice statutes, perhaps you could inform us of how President Trump has violated one or more of the 6 federal obstruction of justice statutes.

Or would you prefer to not have to make any demonstration of how President Trump has violated any of the 6 obstruction of justice statutes but instead assume he has, and on the basis of this mere unproven assumption, requests others make a demonstration of how President Trump hasn't violated those statutes?

 

[NotreDame]

Trump is denying that he demanded loyalty, that is a clear consciousness of guilt. Rogers and Coats have both testified in closed session, if Trump attempted to change the course of their investigations the way he did Comey it's clear obstruction.

Is it clear obstruction? Can you direct me to the post where anyone in this thread, or at this forum, has made ANY demonstration of how President Trump's conduct violates any of the 6, count em, 6 obstruction of justice statutes?

Just an FYI, having read the statutes and researched this matter already, it isn't at all "clear" Trump's conduct violated any of those 6 obstruction of justice statutes. At this moment, having those statutes legally and factually apply to Trump is a proverbial "minefield."

 

[TLK Valentine]

If simply firing the investigators in order to stop/slow the investigation isn't enough, how about a practical example, then, @NotreDame -- hypothetically speaking, of course, could you give an example of something Trump could have said or done which would be a clear case of obstruction under any of the federal statutes?

 

[Hank77]

Is it clear obstruction? Can you direct me to the post where anyone in this thread, or at this forum, has made ANY demonstration of how President Trump's conduct violates any of the 6, count em, 6 obstruction of justice statutes?

Just an FYI, having read the statutes and researched this matter already, it isn't at all "clear" Trump's conduct violated any of those 6 obstruction of justice statutes. At this moment, having those statutes legally and factually apply to Trump is a proverbial "minefield."

Do you have any thoughts on why Trump would ask Comey to make a public statement to the media that he, Trump, was not personally under investigation, rather than asking his DAG Rosenstein to do it?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you have any thoughts on why Trump would ask Comey to make a public statement to the media that he, Trump, was not personally under investigation, rather than asking his DAG Rosenstein to do it?

Because that is typical trump and didnt surprise me one bit, based on his behavior for decades. Nothing about comey's revelations about trump were out of character for trump. He crossed a line past presidents followed, but that doesnt make it obstruction. What surprised me about the comey testimony, was how comey responded to all of it, which didnt fit his long experience as a prosecutor, deputy attorney general and head of the fbi.

 

[whatbogsends]

Because that is typical trump and didnt surprise me one bit, based on his behavior for decades. Nothing about comey's revelations about trump were out of character for trump. He crossed a line past presidents followed, but that doesnt make it obstruction. What surprised me about the comey testimony, was how comey responded to all of it, which didnt fit his long experience as a prosecutor, deputy attorney general and head of the fbi.

It really didn't surprise me. When you're dealing with a boss with a quick temper and penchant for vengeance that can't be reasoned with, who ultimately, is the highest authority in the country, people, even normally confident, capable people, tend to be deferential. Did you see his cabinet meeting with all of these other men of high position going around the table and voicing the required high praise of their emperor?

 

[bhsmte]

It really didn't surprise me. When you're dealing with a boss with a quick temper and penchant for vengeance that can't be reasoned with, who ultimately, is the highest authority in the country, people, even normally confident, capable people, tend to be deferential. Did you see his cabinet meeting with all of these other men of high position going around the table and voicing the required high praise of their emperor?

I understand your point, but do disagree that comey was some victim of a tyrant and so overwhelmed, he locked up. I think comey is an honest guy, but i learned much more about him through this process, than i did about trump. I said this in another thread; a skilled prosecutor could make an argument for obstruction. With that said, a skilled attorney could formulate a rigorous defense against the same. Furthermore, i believe comey would get eviscerated on cross examination.

 

[Hank77]

What surprised me about the comey testimony, was how comey responded to all of it, which didnt fit his long experience as a prosecutor, deputy attorney general and head of the fbi.

I really don't know, but then I don't know what Comey knows.

I think he must have some really serious concerns for him to do his best to force the appointment of a special counsel. I don't think that it necessarily has anything to do with Trump but is serious enough to try to make sure that the investigations are not interfered with. Was Comey willing to sacrifice his reputation and future to make that happen? Maybe.

 

[mark kennedy]

Is it clear obstruction? Can you direct me to the post where anyone in this thread, or at this forum, has made ANY demonstration of how President Trump's conduct violates any of the 6, count em, 6 obstruction of justice statutes?

Just an FYI, having read the statutes and researched this matter already, it isn't at all "clear" Trump's conduct violated any of those 6 obstruction of justice statutes. At this moment, having those statutes legally and factually apply to Trump is a proverbial "minefield."

If you want to make the argument that Trump didn't obstruct anything based on the criminal code then do that. This show me in the thread stuff is some pretty pointless rhetoric. Trumps association with Russia is inappropriate at best and you ask me people are going to jail over this. But that's ok, you don't see any obstruction of justice here that's fine, but own it. I don't think I would care except for the chants LOCK HER UP! and the fact that this email scandal likely cost here the Presidency. Where's all that outrage and indignation when Trump does worse? Flynn lies about contact with Russia, Sessions lies about contact with Russia and Trump denies there is any proof Russia hacked the election.

That perfectly fine but own it when the indictments start coming down.

 

[Hank77]

Trump denies there is any proof Russia hacked the election.

Just for clarification, what do you mean by hacked the 'election'? What do you think they did?

 

[mark kennedy]

Just for clarification, what do you mean by hacked the 'election'? What do you think they did?

So the DNC and state polls with the determined goal of influencing the election in Trumps favor.