James Comey Testifies: Open Thread

DavidTC in reply to Francis says:

This is a true comment but also irrelevant. There is zero, literally zero, chance that the DOJ would ever indict and prosecute a sitting President for conduct that arose within the scope of the performance of his duties. (Even if they tried, I can’t believe that a court would allow such a case to go forward.) That is a political question to be resolved by Congress.

I didn’t say they would.

I said that if President Trump threatened to fire Comey unless he ended the investigation, it is clearly, *legally*, obstruction of justice. (Or, yes, technically it’s ‘Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees’, one of the many forms of Obstruction of Justice.) That doesn’t mean he will be *charged*, but it clearly fits the legal requirements.

(Which is why asserting, as a matter of fact, that he *actually* carried out this threat…is a very dubious ‘defense’ of anything.)

However, to your point, I actually *do* think if the DoJ indicted him on obstruction, the courts would go along with it…except I think he could fire any district attorney who was prosecuting him. So it’s not going to happen.

The reason impeachment exists is that a president *can make investigations disappear*. There’s nothing in the constitution that says investigations and even trials *can’t* move forward if he doesn’t do that! As far as I can tell, he can be convicted of crimes while president.

Although, as president, he could probably order his jailers to release him. It’d be kind of a stupid solution all around to have a supposed-to-be imprisoned president.

Could, paradoxically, 25th him, I guess….they file that paperwork, and now he *can’t* order his jailers to release him, so he *actually can’t* fulfill the duties of the presidency.

But what I would like to see here is impeachment, removal, and an actual trial afterward.Report

DavidTC in reply to George Turner says:

George has insisted, repeatedly, that Trump fired Comey because Comey refused to end the investigation.

George also insists, now, that Trump did not threaten to fire Comey unless Comey ended the investigation.

And all those conversations with Comey where he asked Comey to drop it should not, under any circumstances, be understood as threats. Especially not the one on Jan. 27 where he also asked if Comey wanted to keep his job.

Everyone got that? Trump did not threaten to do anything…he just did it. Completely different, and surely entirely legal.

—

Except, erm, wait. That would be a very very stupid law, forbidding someone from threatening to do something, but allowing them to actually do it. That surely can’t be right, let’s check the law again:

Whoever 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 and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Let’s get some of those clauses out of the way: ‘Whoever corruptly endeavors to impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States…’

And right now you’re wondering what ‘corruptly’ means there. It…really just means ‘with the intent of’. Here, have some jury instructions: http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/590

‘As used in § 1503, “corruptly” means that the act must be done with the purpose of obstructing justice. United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 851 (9th Cir.1981).’

(Yes, that’s for 1503 which is influencing a jury, but it’s literally the same phrasing so ‘corruptly’ presumably means the exactly same thing in 1505.)

So the question is ‘Did Trump intentionally endeavor to obstruct or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States?’

And, as I said, you have been *literally arguing* that he did that! (To be fair, *he* is also arguing he did that!) You have been, absurdly, arguing he committed an obstruction of justice…but it’s okay, because that that investigation was a bogus investigation making up stuff to damage him.

And, as I *keep pointing out*, there is absolutely no ‘unless the investigation is made-up bullshit’ exception to obstruction of justice. None whatsoever. There is literally no such thing as obstructing an investigation in self-defense or whatever you think should be a valid defense.Report

DavidTC in reply to George Turner says:

And thus we reach the point where George has finally realized that Trump firing Comey over the investigation into Trump would really, legally, be obstruction of justice, regardless of how unjustified the investigation is.

Finally.

Despite me repeatedly pointing it out every time he tries that excuse.

So he instead attempts to rewrite history into pretending he was arguing it was legal for Trump to fire Comey over the handling of the Clinton stuff.

The problem is, dude, we really can see the last couple of hours of your posts. Some relevant quotes:

Whether you believe obstruction of justice took place also depends on the fact that Comey’s investigation was a witch hunt.

Should a President be impeached for trying to end an out-of-control witch hunt?

Ending an investigation is not obstruction of justice or every single DoJ and FBI director would be in jail, because investigations are ended all the time. Many because they were witch hunts.

Gee, George, it sure looks like you spent hours arguing that Trump fired Comey because Comey refused to shut down an out-of-control witch-hunt investigation into Trump. Oh well. Maybe you’ll stop now.

I will also point out that your brand new claim that it was entirely about the Clinton investigation announcements…uh…suffers a bit from your previous apparent complaints that Comey hasn’t said more about the Clinton investigation. You can’t argue that Comey should have been fired for disclosing information about an investigation while also arguing he should have disclosed more information about that same investigation!

And that’s basically the same problem that both the Attorney General and Trump have, in that they praised Comey for releasing that information at the time, so deciding to fire him for that, months later, seems a bit dubious.

That, along with the fact that Trump has explicitly to Lester Holt said he was going to fire Comey regardless of the reasons given by the Assistant AG, along with Trump seeming to indicating that he did fire Comey because of the investigation (Although he is vague enough in talking about it that there is enough wiggle room to deny he was saying he fired him to impede the investigation.), along with Trump talking to the Russians about how he fired Comey and now the pressure of the investigation is now off…means that is a tough defense.

That’s all in addition to what we learned yesterday/today, that Trump behaved in ways that seem to be trying to pressure Comey about that investigation. (1)

It’s not an impossible defense, but it’s a tough one. If Trump was indicted for this, he might make it through. Or maybe not. Of course, that’s not how this works.

But it is, finally, an actual defense from you. At least, you are now attempting to argue that Trump’s behavior was comprised of legal things, instead of arguing it was ‘illegal but had a good reason!’, which you didn’t seem to notice was…still illegal!

1) And, weirdly, these discussions never once seem to touch upon the behavior that Trump claims was the firing offense. Instead, both Trump and Sessions praised him for it months earlier, and then left it entirely alone when they became his bosses. They didn’t ever say ‘Hey, you get that that was a political statement we were making, right? And we actually don’t approve of that, and if you do it again you’re getting fired…in fact, we might fire you anyway!’.

Nope! They just left him with the entirely wrong impression they wanted him to make statements on active investigations, and then went and fired him for one he already made month earlier that they had apparently been okay with at the time!

Ah, the joys of Trump: When you state the most hypothetical legal and justified explanation of his behavior, he sounds like a complete asshole and a horrible boss.Report