|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 09 2017 01:49 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 01:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 09 2017 01:42 m4ini wrote:On June 09 2017 01:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 09 2017 01:06 dankobanana wrote:
i'm impressed by this man. whatever he did with the Clinton situation he seems professional and ethical I've been familiar with Comey's work well before any of this election stuff and I think highly of his work overall. There's a reason I've generally defended Comey regardless of which "side" he was on in his various election related issues. He really doesn't seem to "side" with anything. After watching this (first time i had a "first person contact" with comey), i can't help but feel like that he'd be quite the loss to the FBI. Exactly. He's a principled investigator who takes his job seriously. He is well respected and deserves that respect. Much of his criticism the election season was far more partisan than was justified. What i actually thought was the most refreshing is the fact that he's a rare breed of people who genuinely loves his country. Most people here (all trumpets on TL included) don't grasp the difference between patriotism and nationalism - he comes off as what is portrayed as patriot in movies. Which, again, is very refreshing to see that there's people who genuinely love america, and are willing to actually make sacrifices (and by that i don't mean sacrificing something/someone elses) to serve it. Maybe that's my former military background, but that guy got mad respect from me even though i didn't like his constant "i could be wrong" at the beginning (which he then dropped, so all good).
The new breed demonization of public servants as part of the “deep state” has to be the most infuriating part of the right in the US at this time. There are a lot of “Comeys” among civil servants in the EPA, education department and even the NSA. People who just want to serve the public and not be a political football for congress. The Republicans used to attack wasteful spending, but now rhetoric has moved to attacking the public servants. It sucks.
|
On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it: Show nested quote +
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired".
Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now.
I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088
"(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part.
|
United States43748 Posts
On June 09 2017 01:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Do you think there is a conflict of interest in Trump instructing the FBI on how to proceed with their investigation of Trump? Keep asking. I'm not going to answer because it is a patently stupid question due to the phrase that I have highlighted. I'm not in the mood to needlessly shit up the thread.
Your refusal to answer seems pretty transparent at this point honestly.
|
On June 09 2017 01:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 01:48 On_Slaught wrote:On June 09 2017 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:39 On_Slaught wrote:On June 09 2017 01:30 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:26 Doodsmack wrote:
And the obvious rebuttal is "where is the gun?" So you'd admit context matters? Here you have your direct boss and the president of the United States telling everyone else to leave the room so that he can ask for your loyalty and ask you to drop an investigation in private? (If I'm understanding what happened correctly?) What about the context doesn't scream "this is an order but I'm trying to be sly?." Classic mob/thug verbiage. Don't act like this isn't something we've all heard in a threatening context. "I hope something bad doesn't happen to your business!" etc. No immediate threat required. The totality of the circumstances matter. Appealing to the robber scenario is idiotic because the "I hope" language isn't the crime. It's the pointing of the gun at the victim. The president is clearly allowed to give guidance to law enforcement regarding active investigations. His merely saying "I hope you can drop the investigation," in and of itself, doesn't even come remotely close to falling outside the bounds of his constitutional authority, thus, by definition, it does not constitute obstruction of justice. At the same time it's also true that a crime is not required for impeachment iirc. It's enough that he acts like a piece of shit and does shady things for his own benefit. Ofc that isn't enough with this Congress, but we'll see in 2018. Eh, this is sort of true. There's a lot of ambiguity over what the reasonable grounds for impeachment are. It's the kind of thing that will likely be relitigated at the Supreme Court at some point.
And the Supreme Court will likely go down their standard path of "Don't bring your garbage to us, Congress. If you don't think the standards are clear, handle it yourself."
|
On June 09 2017 01:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 01:49 m4ini wrote:On June 09 2017 01:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 09 2017 01:42 m4ini wrote:On June 09 2017 01:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 09 2017 01:06 dankobanana wrote:
i'm impressed by this man. whatever he did with the Clinton situation he seems professional and ethical I've been familiar with Comey's work well before any of this election stuff and I think highly of his work overall. There's a reason I've generally defended Comey regardless of which "side" he was on in his various election related issues. He really doesn't seem to "side" with anything. After watching this (first time i had a "first person contact" with comey), i can't help but feel like that he'd be quite the loss to the FBI. Exactly. He's a principled investigator who takes his job seriously. He is well respected and deserves that respect. Much of his criticism the election season was far more partisan than was justified. What i actually thought was the most refreshing is the fact that he's a rare breed of people who genuinely loves his country. Most people here (all trumpets on TL included) don't grasp the difference between patriotism and nationalism - he comes off as what is portrayed as patriot in movies. Which, again, is very refreshing to see that there's people who genuinely love america, and are willing to actually make sacrifices (and by that i don't mean sacrificing something/someone elses) to serve it. Maybe that's my former military background, but that guy got mad respect from me even though i didn't like his constant "i could be wrong" at the beginning (which he then dropped, so all good). The new breed demonization of public servants as part of the “deep state” has to be the most infuriating part of the right in the US at this time. There are a lot of “Comeys” among civil servants in the EPA, education department and even the NSA. People who just want to serve the public and not be a political football for congress. The Republicans used to attack wasteful spending, but now rhetoric has moved to attacking the public servants. It sucks.
I maybe shouldn't have said "rare breed", but it certainly comes off like it in the current climate. You rarely see a real patriot as someone who isn't from the US. It feels like a dying breed anyway, with the majority being replaced by nationalists.
|
On June 09 2017 01:50 Kipsate wrote:
I have to agree, I didn't have too high of an opinion of Comey before this and it is possible that what he did was "wrong" but I don't believe handled maliciously or anything.
For a while it did look somewhat dafuq, but given the internal issues at the time within the DOJ it makes sense and was not necessarily the wrong decision even in hindsight. Hillary generally blames everyone but herself, as her outburst within the past month has shown, so it should be no surprise she blamed Comey among others for her defeat.
|
You're not going to get xDaunt to say that it's obvious what Trump meant with I hope, he's in lawyer mode defending his client. If your lawyer suddenly says "Well I guess he looks guilty" because a few people question him, he's not a very good lawyer.
|
On June 09 2017 01:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 01:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Do you think there is a conflict of interest in Trump instructing the FBI on how to proceed with their investigation of Trump? Keep asking. I'm not going to answer because it is a patently stupid question due to the phrase that I have highlighted. I'm not in the mood to needlessly shit up the thread. Your refusal to answer seems pretty transparent at this point honestly.
Not really. It's a reflection on you and what you always do in this thread. You're asking me a hypothetical question that has no bearing on the current discussion for the purpose of shitting up the thread. I'm not playing that game. Ask a real question and I'll consider answering it.
|
On June 09 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 01:49 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2017 01:44 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:33 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2017 01:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 09 2017 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 09 2017 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Considering from a legal perspective Comey's memos are functionally tapes, Trump's fucked if he wants to dispute events unless there ARE tapes and they show Comey was a liar.
It's hard to say pit Trump's word against Comey's when the very first thing Trump did was lie about what the FBI thought of Comey. A couple things here. First, the memos aren't as good as tapes. These are Comey's recollections. Second, the memos are not going to be helpful to Comey because he is going to be limited by what's in them. Let's just presume that Comey isn't an idiot and his opening remarks are entirely consistent with his memos factually (if they're not, then Comey is a liar, and Trump wins anyway). If that's the case, then Trump doesn't have anything to worry about because all that's in the memos isn't going to be enough to show obstruction of justice. The taken-immediately-afterwards memorandums and recollections of an FBI agent are about as good as you can get, bar actual tapes. If Trump wants to contest the contents of any of the memos, he needs tapes. Period. The memos are designed to show intent for Trump to obstruct by firing, not necessarily by what Trump did in the memos themselves. This is why Republicans aren't touching on the firing at all, because it's a hot garbage fire. If Trump could refute the memos and spin his outrageous "my statements should be taken literally" about everything he said after the fact, it would be harder to show any intent to obstruct the Russia investigation. Actually, the memos don't really show that intent. That's the problem with them. You have to read in between all sorts of lines to gather that intent. Trump's action as set forth in those memos is inconsistent with interfering with the investigation. Yes, he wanted the investigation to stop, but at no point did he do anything to impede it. This leaves the door open to more plausible explanations for Comey's firing (like the one that I laid out yesterday) and gives Trump carte blanche to shape his own narrative. In short, Democrats need something else. I'm not saying that it's not out there, but they aren't there yet. The memos clearly show Trump wanted the investigation to stop sooner rather than later. And then fired Comey. There's no space "I wanted the investigation to conclude naturally" if you take them as fact. 100% confirming Trump explicitly told Comey he wanted the investigation over with is a big deal for building a link of "Trump unhappy investigation isn't over-> fire Comey." Without the former, we just have a firing and then potentially Trump being (incorrectly) happy the investigation was going to be over sooner. There's plenty room for alternative reasons for the termination. You're just hyper-focused on one possible explanation. To be fair, that is the explanation that Trump gave for the firing during a TV interview a couple days later. Actually, I'd like to look at that interview transcript again. Do you have a link or remember whom it was with? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigationThis guardian article is the best I have and they have the clip itself. Trump: "And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’” There is also a quote that he did it without direction from the Justice department, that it was his decision. Of course the defense would be that Comey was to public about the investigation. I think that defense would be undercut by Trumps continued attempts to discuss it with Comey. And Comey's statements that he felt Trump was trying influence the investigation. And the investigation that most of Comey's statements were during senate hearings that the senate requested. Yeah, that's about what I recall. Not helpful to Trump, but it also isn't the smoking gun on intent.
There could always be more. God know the FBI is going to be talking to a lot of people. And Trump might have gone full Nixon and we will get some lovely tapes.
|
On June 09 2017 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired". Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now. I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 "(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part.
Like I pointed out last night, Seth Abramson is full of shit. He either doesn't understand the statute that he cites in those tweets, or he is a hack and is intentionally misrepresenting what it says. My bet is on the latter.
|
On the "I hope" situation, I have to say it definitely depends on context. Is it "I hope you understand that it's time to drop it" or "I really hope this gets dropped?"
|
On June 09 2017 02:01 Nebuchad wrote:
You're not going to get xDaunt to say that it's obvious what Trump meant with I hope, he's in lawyer mode defending his client. If your lawyer suddenly says "Well I guess he looks guilty" because a few people question him, he's not a very good lawyer.
My super liberal attorney is doing the same thing. It is the default state for most attorneys. The truth about legal question is all the answers are "maybe." We don't know Trumps mind and we don't have all the evidence. But the evidence is falling from the trees every day.
|
On June 09 2017 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
On the "I hope" situation, I have to say it definitely depends on context. Is it "I hope you understand that it's time to drop it" or "I really hope this gets dropped?"
This even boils down to intonation.
I have no reason to doubt comeys judgement for now.
|
On June 09 2017 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
On the "I hope" situation, I have to say it definitely depends on context. Is it "I hope you understand that it's time to drop it" or "I really hope this gets dropped?"
The point is that "I hope," in a vacuum, is not obstruction of justice. There has to be something else, whether it be coercion or bribery. Trump is allowed to persuade the FBI director to drop an investigation. What he can't do is "corruptly persuade" the FBI director to drop the investigation (or threaten him, or any of the other things prohibited by the statute).
|
The context being his manager during working hours dismissed all other staff and "invited" him to a private dinner, expressing "hope" that a personal matter he considers detrimental to him would be dropped.
|
On June 09 2017 02:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired". Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now. I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 "(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part. Like I pointed out last night, Seth Abramson is full of shit. He either doesn't understand the statute that he cites in those tweets, or he is a hack and is intentionally misrepresenting what it says. My bet is on the latter.
What does he say that's incorrect? What makes you think he doesn't understand the statute?
|
On June 09 2017 02:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired". Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now. I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 "(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part. Like I pointed out last night, Seth Abramson is full of shit. He either doesn't understand the statute that he cites in those tweets, or he is a hack and is intentionally misrepresenting what it says. My bet is on the latter. What does he say that's incorrect? What makes you think he doesn't understand the statute?
He turned "corruptly persuade" into "persuade." The statute that he cites in those tweets clearly says "corruptly persuade." There's a huge difference between the terms.
|
On June 09 2017 02:05 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
On the "I hope" situation, I have to say it definitely depends on context. Is it "I hope you understand that it's time to drop it" or "I really hope this gets dropped?" This even boils down to intonation. I have no reason to doubt comeys judgement for now.
Trustworthiness would be the critical factor before a jury. And the two of them couldn't be farther apart on the spectrum. But that isn't the process for the President.
|
|
|
On June 09 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Here's the moneyshot on the "I hope" nonsense in case anyone missed it:
Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"
"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"
Comey: "Correct."
Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."
Comey: "Not in his words, no."
Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."
Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."
Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"
Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."
Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"
Comey: "I don't as I sit here."
It's always been "I hope" rather than "I order", which means semantically, without context, it's unclear but the intention in context is clear, which may not be enough to legally convict Trump of obstruction of justice. When your boss asks you to see him privately in his office and he says "I hope you can do X for me and I demand loyalty from you", I think it's pretty clear that he's giving you a specific direction and objective that he wants you to follow, which is what Comey's understanding of the situation was as well. And then afterwards, if your boss fires you and tells everyone that he fired you because you didn't do X, that sounds pretty straightforward that the "hope" was an implied "do this or else", with the "or else" being "You're fired". Of course, while "obstruction of justice" is a well-defined legal term, impeachment is completely political. I wouldn't be surprised if this potential obstruction of justice isn't a smoking gun for impeachment; Republicans would have to dislike Trump even more than they/ Americans do now. I really like this breakdown of obstruction of justice: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872532952055513088 "(13) If the words Comey CONTEMPORANEOUSLY RECORDED as having been said by Trump were indeed said, Trump IS guilty of Obstruction of Justice." That's referencing the "I hope" part. Like I pointed out last night, Seth Abramson is full of shit. He either doesn't understand the statute that he cites in those tweets, or he is a hack and is intentionally misrepresenting what it says. My bet is on the latter. What does he say that's incorrect? What makes you think he doesn't understand the statute? He turned "corruptly persuade" into "persuade." The statute that he cites in those tweets clearly says "corruptly persuade." There's a huge difference between the terms.
I asked last night, but is “corruptly persuade” one of the required prongs? Is the implied threat of losing his job not enough to meet the prong of “threatening”?
Because I believe Abramson left “corruptly persuade” out of his tweets specifically because we have zero evidence of bribery or quid pro quo. It just isn’t a factor and he is explaining law to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
