NYT: The Case For Obstructin Charges
This is a fairly conservative but argued piece that states the reasonable that there is a strong case for the charge of obstruction of justice.
"So far, the case against Mr. Trump involves three key events. First, James Comey said that when he was the F.B.I. director, the president told him in a Valentines Day chat, I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. Two Federal Courts of Appeals have held that similar I hope statements can depending on the context support charges of obstruction.
Second, President Trump reportedly asked the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, in a private meeting in late March if Coats could get the F.B.I. to back off its Flynn probe. President Nixons attempt to use the C.I.A. to shut down the Watergate investigation was one of the reasons the House Judiciary Committee voted for articles of impeachment on obstruction charges.
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
Last, President Trump fired Mr. Comey on May 9 and then said on television that the firing was related to the Russia inquiry a signal to Comeys replacement, Acting Director Andrew McCabe, that he should roll back the investigation if he wanted to stay on as F.B.I. chief.
Even if none of those specific incidents would qualify as obstruction on its own, federal courts have said that an entire course of conduct can constitute obstruction. And whether Mr. Trump succeeded in his efforts is legally irrelevant, because federal law criminalizes attempted obstruction as well as successful obstruction. Nor does it matter whether there was an actual underlying crime.
The more difficult question involves intent whether Mr. Trump acted corruptly when he sought to stymie the investigation. The president is the head of federal law enforcement, and prosecutorial discretion is a core element of executive power. No court would say that a prosecutor is guilty of obstruction for dropping a case because it is hard to prove, too expensive or even politically unpopular. How can a prosecutors boss be guilty of obstruction by telling the prosecutor to stop?
(SNIP)
The presidents constitutional responsibilities do make his standard of conduct more nuanced than that of an ordinary prosecutor. If Mr. Trump tried to block the investigation of Mr. Flynn because he believed that the inquiry would bring us to the brink of war with Russia, then that would suggest a noncorrupt intent. Mr. Mueller will have to ask not just what the president did but also why he did it. By carefully considering this question, Mr. Mueller would be fulfilling his mandate, which extends to obstruction allegations arising out of his initial investigation. And even if he decides not to charge the president, his findings may show that Mr. Trump has abused his power in ways that would warrant impeachment, if not indictment."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/opinion/the-case-for-obstruction-charges.html
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)if you believe a malignant narcissist went out of his way and exposed himself to legal jeopardy for a guy he has known maybe a year and half in a professional/business relationship.
Show of hands.......How many of you would risk jail for one of your employees?
GusBob
(7,286 posts)We are all being played
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)Its likely that Trump instructed Flynn to make the phone call to Russia about sanctions. That explains why Flynn wasn't fired for so long - Flynn was only doing what he was told to do. Trump being in on it also fits with the White House's repeated claims that Flynn lied to Pence. The White House never said if Flynn lied to Trump or not.
It doesn't make sense that Flynn could tell Russia that the sanctions would be lifted without clearing that with Trump first. How would Flynn know they would be lifted?
Trumps involvement would look very suspicious because he would go as far as to undermine the foreign policy of United States to please Russia. Did owing Russia cause Trump to go so far?
Flynn lied to the public about the call. If Trump knew the truth he knew Flynn was lying. Trump did nothing to stop it. That's probably because Trump told Flynn to lie. If Trump told Flynn to lie about it, he also probably told Flynn to lie about it to the FBI. If Trump did that it must have been a crime.
So if we get to the bottom of it, Trump was probably trying to save his own ass. That's surely corrupt intent.