Report: Trump Pressured the DNI and NSA Chief To Scuttle FBI Investigation

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedThis morning’s news is again filled with a new and troubling disclosure out of the Trump White House.  Various news organizations are reporting that President Donald Trump spoke to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers about the Russian investigation and asked them to publicly deny evidence of cooperation between his campaign and Russia.  I was on Morning Joe today and once again cautioned about declaring a prima facie case of obstruction (as many have done on CNN and other networks) in the absence of facts satisfying the elements for that crime.  While it is obviously something of a buzz kill, there still is not sufficient evidence (even if these accounts are true) to support an indictment.

In addition to the statements to Rogers and Coats, the Washington Post details how White House officials asked other officials “Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter?”
Once again, it is important to consider whether such statements meet the definition of obstruction of justice.  Do these inquiries, if true, constitute an attempt by someone to “corruptly” “influence, obstruct, or impede” the “due administration” of justice. This is usually anchored in a pending judicial or congressional proceeding.  Let’s say for the moment that the FBI can say that there were ongoing proceedings to “obstruct” in the form of the investigations in February and March.  Would these comments be an effort to corruptly influence or impede?  Trump can insist that he viewed the investigations as baseless and wanted to the investigation to be closed in the absence of any real evidence of collusion.  More importantly, it is relevant to ask about the underlying crime.  Trump himself is not accused of any underlying crime.  Moreover, “collusion” is not some readily identifiable crime under the criminal code.  Certainly the failure to register as a foreign agent is a crime, albeit one that is rarely prosecuted.  Lying to investigators is a crime, but that would be directed at Flynn and not Trump in all likelihood.
Section 1503 is a likely basis for investigation due to its catch all clause. The Section states:

(a)

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or 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 administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
Much of Section 1503 refers to formal proceedings or court officers or jurors.  It does have “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 administration of justice.”  That line has been used primarily in reference to obstructing formal proceedings, but the Justice Department could try to secure a more expansive reading. However, there is a danger to such expansive readings of the criminal code.  The Justice Department could start to criminalize a huge range of conduct or comments by alleging that there was a prospect of a grand jury investigation or other proceeding.
There is also Section 1505 but that is not much more help during the time frame of these comments of February and March.  Section 1505 states:

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—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

 Section 1505 references two types of obstruction.  First, there is a “pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States.”  It is not clear that such a proceeding existed, particularly in the absence of a grand jury proceeding.  We may learn more about such proceedings but that would be the best foundation.  The second reference is to “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.”  However, Trump’s comments were directed at the FBI investigation and the congressional inquiries were broader and less defined.
Section 1505 also allows for prosecution for withholding, misrepresenting, removing from any place, concealing, covering up, destroying, mutilating, altering, or by other means falsifying any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony with the intent of avoiding, evading, preventing, or obstructing compliance, in whole or in part, with that demand.  We have yet to see evidence of such conduct within the White House. Flynn might be accused of concealing such material, but again it is a bit early on that count.

Notably, Trump was public about his dismissal of the Russian investigation and his view that it was a politically manipulated allegation.  He was not hiding his desire to see the investigation ended.  His comments to Comey and others were clearly and grossly improper. But were they crimes in themselves?  That is the more difficult question.

The comments could reflect Trump’s sensitivity over allegations tarnishing his historic victory over Clinton.  He is notoriously sensitive over his public persona.  The additional allegations (and contemporary memorialization by staffers) offer ample reason to investigation and obstruction should be a focus of the investigation.  However, such investigations generally work from a foundation in the criminal code.  As of now, his comments make Trump appear more like Captain Queeg than John Gotti:

93 thoughts on “Report: Trump Pressured the DNI and NSA Chief To Scuttle FBI Investigation”

  1. Adam Schiff: “Have any members of the IC shared with you their concerns that the president was attempting to enlist the help of people within the intelligence community to drop the Flynn investigation?

    Brennan: “No Sir”.

  2. People need to call their Reps & request they connect AG Jeff Sessions to bring a case against NYT, WAPO, CNN, etc., in front of a Grand Jury to examine the charges of violating Title 18 Section 1038.

    I think JT failed to mention this Law & that NYT has now pulled the fact-less Comey Memo.

    “18 U.S. Code § 1038 – False information and hoaxes”

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038

  3. BREAKING!!! BREAKING!!! SCOOP by SQUEEKY FROMM, GIRL REPORTER!!!

    My sources within the FBI have obtained a copy of the charging document against President Trump!!!

    Wherefore President Trump is now making one Attempt more upon us; an Attempt more Difficult, more Surprizing, more snarl’d with unintelligible Circumstances than any that we have hitherto Encountered; an Attempt so Critical, that if we get well through, we shall soon Enjoy Halcyon Days, with all the Vultures of Hell Trodden under our Feet. He has wanted his Incarnate Legions to Persecute us, as the People of God have in the other Hemisphere been Persecuted: he has therefore drawn forth his more spiritual ones to make an attacque upon us. We have been advised by some Credible Christians yet alive, that a Malefactor, accused of Witchcraft as well as Murder, and Executed in this place more than Forty Years ago, did then give Notice of, An Horrible PLOT & against the Country by WITCHCRAFT, and a Foundation of WITCHCRAFT then laid, which if it were not seasonably discovered, would probably Blow up, and pull down all the Churches in the Country. And we have now with Horror seen the Discovery of such a WITCHCRAFT!

    Oh, if this is true, this is huge and serious!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeek, have you been reading the Puritans? Jonathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”? =)

  4. “‘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 administration of justice.'”

    It seems reasonable to me that “due administration of justice” would include an FBI investigation.

    Is there a definition of the word “corrupt” in these statutes or case law as it pertains to section 1505? Webster’s defines it in part as:

    “to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions Officials were corrupted by greed. was accused of corrupting the youth; also : bribe”

    Shouldn’t corruption arguably encompass the President forcing the top executive officers of DNI and NSA to publish facts contrary to what may be the truth with the implicit threat of “You’re fired!” if they don’t?

    1. Shouldn’t corruption arguably encompass the President forcing the top executive officers of DNI and NSA to publish facts contrary to what may be the truth with the implicit threat of “You’re fired!” if they don’t?

      Well, since you put it that way then sure. In the interest of manufacturing a storyline, wouldn’t it be prudent to pile on with accusations of dining on puppies or droning retirement homes? Go big or go home!

        1. This whole thing reminds me of the stories where someone is falsey charged with a crime and the prosecutor manipulates evidence to point to the suspect they want (need) to rack up a conviction. Then, when evidence is presented that proves the defendant could not possibly have committed the crime, the prosecutor doubles-down rather than drop the charges.

            1. Mike Nifong comes to mind. Those rich, white, lacrosse players MUST have raped that poor, black, pole dancer. Damn the lack of any evidence..ramming speed!

  5. Perhaps Trump should be bragging about collusion with the Ruskes. He and his gang fall woefully short of any level of competence, Russian or other.

    Read this ‘fake’ news published in the Washington Post, probably by people who just happen to have the same names as Trump’s mutts but not them.

    ‘So it has come to this: A Russian government-funded propaganda outfit schooling the Trump administration on the cruelty of its proposed federal budget.

    Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s budget director, unveiled Trump’s ghastly 2018 budget proposal Monday afternoon in the White House briefing room, and one point of pride was that it proposed that the child-care tax credit and the earned-income tax credit — benefits for working families — be denied to illegal immigrants. “It’s not right when you look at it from the perspective of people who pay the taxes,” Mulvaney declared.

    But Andrew Feinberg, a reporter with Russia’s Sputnik news outfit, pointed out that many of the children who would be cut off under Trump’s proposal are U.S. citizens. “Whether they’re here illegally or not,” Feinberg noted, “those families have American-citizen children.”

    It was a bizarre scene: An organization financed by Vladimir Putin’s regime, in the White House, lecturing a Trump administration official. (Maybe they aren’t “colluding” after all.) But Trump’s budget is such that it leaves this White House’s credibility on a par with (or perhaps below) that of a Russian propaganda outfit.

    The budget claims it balances the budget over a decade without touching Social Security and Medicare, while spending more on national security, the border, infrastructure and more.

    How? The budget would eviscerate aid to the poor, and it makes preposterous assumptions about future growth. In other words — a cruelty wrapped in a lie. Mulvaney on Monday acknowledged it’s a “fair point” that Congress will ignore the proposal. But this outrage deserves attention.

    Trump, who once vowed “no cuts” to Medicaid, would now cut Medicaid by more than $800 billion, denying support to 10 million people. He lops a total of $1.7 trillion off that and similar programs, including food stamps, school lunches and Habitat for Humanity.

    Mulvaney, defending the budget Monday, made a frank admission: “This is, I think, the first time in a long time an administration has written a budget through the eyes of people who actually are paying the taxes. Too often in Washington I think we often think only on the recipient side.”

    Exactly. The rich pay the most in overall taxes (even if not by percentage), and they get the lion’s share of benefits from Trump’s budget. The poor and working poor pay little or nothing in federal income taxes — and they would get little or nothing.

    But even taking all benefits from the poor and the working class wouldn’t make a budget balance, particularly if Social Security and Medicare aren’t chopped. Even Mulvaney said he was “honestly surprised” he could balance the budget. How? By making magical assumptions.

    If only there was one step forward to go along with all the backward motion, but no, the idiot Trump is so far down in the pockets of the oligarchs his fish mouth barely get a chance to work, ergo the tweets.

  6. Several people have accurately stated the facts, to wit: Trump has been told that he is not under investigation, that nobody has found any real evidence of “Russiagate”, and that Trump is acting reasonably to ask that certain people publicly state those facts and end the political witch hunt.

    BUT, I want to go one step beyond that, and ask that somebody actually describe in adequate detail what it is that Trump, in the role of the witch, supposedly did. Even in a self-respecting witch hunt, there is some concrete allegation of witchcraft, i.e., flying thru the air on a broomstick, kissing the Devil’s rear end, putting a hex on Goodman Smith’s cow, Bossie. There is some concrete evil act(s) that gets alleged. In Russiagate, I can’t find anything beyond some vague mumblings of collusion. Colluded about doing what, exactly. Not only have i not seen any sort of crime, I haven’t even seen a concrete allegation of a crime.

    In short, calling this crap a witch hunt, is being unfair to witch hunts.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky:

      “Even in a self-respecting witch hunt, there is some concrete allegation of witchcraft, i.e., flying thru the air on a broomstick, kissing the Devil’s rear end, putting a hex on Goodman Smith’s cow, Bossie.”

      *************************

      I have it on good authority that Trump is a witch/warlock since he has the eye of Newt — Gingrich.

  7. Here’s a novel idea:

    You shouldn’t always assume that the media are lying, nor should you assume that they are always telling the truth, particularly regarding the sensational headlines we see every hour of every day in the Age of Trump. A good rule of thumb moving forward in this brave new world is: if some shocking, scandalous, or crazy revelation makes its way across your newspaper, television, or web browser, take a deep breath. Investigate further. Verify the facts.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/23/13-major-fake-news-stories-just-five-months-trumps-presidency/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=6465587ecd-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-6465587ecd-79248369

  8. If the President had been told that he was not under investigation and that multiple intel sources have not found any evidence of cooperation with the Russians, then wouldn’t it be a natural request for that to be publicly declared? He’s still a citizen of the country and he should have every right to request that the relevant authorities publicly deny there is any evidence at this point in the investigation.

    And no, this President is not going to get away with obstructing justice by coercing the DOJ or any other of the alphabet soup agencies. Hell, he can’t even eat two scoops of ice cream without being condemned as a tyrannical dictator. To believe so is simply projecting the practices of the previous administration.

    1. Trump has now turned NSA head and DNI into witnesses for Mueller in an obstruction of justice case.

  9. Detective Joe Friday should have been picked to head the special council. This guy doesn’t mess around. Just state the facts.

  10. I truly want to be looking at this screen when the results produced by Mueller are flashed as Breaking News.

    On another subject My GF who is not an English speaker asked me to post, which i did elsewhere’ the following. Her name traslates as Dangerous Woman so How could I refuse?

    Ariana Grande has an opportunty to be a true role model to the younger people by simply not canceling the next concert in Britain IF the British authorties agree and they do have the ability to make it a true safe spot. No matter if she sings to an empty auditorium she will have become a true role model by ‘singing out’ against terrorism. Tough call for a young sheltered person to make true but we have men and women in the military who made that call at age 18.

    Will she or won’t she? 50 50 she will or she won’t . But once one is cancelled can the other places in this tour be counted on to honor the ticket sales made?

  11. Other places included big time liberal and Hillary supporter Alan Dershowitz. Who counters all of this with the phrase ….Where’s the Crime?…and pointed out iin detail if the allegations were true there is still no crime. As did Professor Turlow.

    1. As I had said before, Dershowitz says that a president can pretty much collude with anybody he wants to, and sell out to anybody he wants to. With the only remedy being the ballot box next time around.

      1. Jay,
        Do you have a citation for that statement by Dershowitz? In any event, the 2016 election results would certainly prove that statement true.

  12. Going to the shows that call the president all sorts of names is not of good taste . I stopped watching the retarded media a long time ago , I’m surprised that people I actually respect still go to its most filthy characters as their guests. Let them die in their smugness of ignorance of their own selves !

    1. It is Fox that is dying. The lying pervs are withering and even dying.

  13. If the two people mentioned said we’ve found no evidence to support the charges nor that a crime has been commited I would be very tempted, were I the target, to ask them to publicly shut it down for either personal reasons or to stop the obstruction of the nation’s business. I’m sure the obstructionests will have their own version

    But as has been mentioned in detail elsewhere and now again here. WHERES THE CRIME? The answer is in the part of the investigation that has not been concluded but that targets an entirely different group of people.

    It’s in the hands of the Special Counsel now with no limitations so i suspect the focus will be on protecting those who are still ‘under investigation.’ Which I think includes in a manner of speaking the still ongoing IRS audit. I believe that has not been concluded or it would cause major headines. Nor has their invesitigation into a certain family foundation.

  14. Per the US Code (below) the crime of obstruction of a criminal investigation requires an act of bribery. Where the bribery? No bribery, no criminal violation, no impeachment. You’d think lawyers would look at the law before making pronouncements on criminality.

    U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 73 › § 1510
    18 U.S. Code § 1510 – Obstruction of criminal investigations

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    US Code
    Notes
    prev | next
    (a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
    (b)
    (1) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that financial institution, or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    (2) Whoever, being an officer of a financial institution, directly or indirectly notifies—
    (A) a customer of that financial institution whose records are sought by a subpoena for records; or
    (B) any other person named in that subpoena;
    about the existence or contents of that subpoena or information that has been furnished in response to that subpoena, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
    (3) As used in this subsection—
    (A) the term “an officer of a financial institution” means an officer, director, partner, employee, agent, or attorney of or for a financial institution; and
    (B) the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena or a Department of Justice subpoena (issued under section 3486 of title 18), for customer records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate—
    (i) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1344, 1956, 1957, or chapter 53 of title 31; or
    (ii) section 1341 or 1343 affecting a financial institution.
    (c) As used in this section, the term “criminal investigator” means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States.
    (d)
    (1) Whoever—
    (A) acting as, or being, an officer, director, agent or employee of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, or
    (B) is engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce or is involved (other than as an insured or beneficiary under a policy of insurance) in a transaction relating to the conduct of affairs of such a business,
    with intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding, directly or indirectly notifies any other person about the existence or contents of a subpoena for records of that person engaged in such business or information that has been furnished to a Federal grand jury in response to that subpoena, shall be fined as provided by this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    (2) As used in paragraph (1), the term “subpoena for records” means a Federal grand jury subpoena for records that has been served relating to a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, section 1033 of this title.
    (e) Whoever, having been notified of the applicable disclosure prohibitions or confidentiality requirements of section 2709(c)(1) of this title, section 626(d)(1) or 627(c)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(d)(1) or 1681v(c)(1)), section 1114(a)(3)(A) or 1114(a)(5)(D)(i) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act [1] (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(3)(A) or 3414(a)(5)(D)(i)), or section 802(b)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 436(b)(1)),[2] knowingly and with the intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding violates such prohibitions or requirements applicable by law to such person shall be imprisoned for not more than five years, fined under this title, or both.

      1. Mike Rogers didn’t get 2B DIRNSA + a 4-star by not understanding value of a CYA memo. Especially when POTUS asks you to do something illegal.

    1. I hate to have to be the one to break it down for you like this, but, all of chapter 73 of title 18 (sections 1501-1521) addresses various types of obstruction of justice. Most cases are prosecuted under section 1503. No one is alleging bribery so far I can tell, so section 1510 is not in play.

      1. My point exactly. The other section you cite deals with pending judicial or legislative proceedings of which there are none as JT notes so it likewise “is not in play.”So thanks for “breaking it down” as far as you did.

        1. Forgot to mention there are no pending administrative proceedings either. So the Orc horde will have to drum up another reason to oust a sitting President and overturn a legal election.

        2. If that was your point, all I can say is you didn’t make it very well.

  15. Seriously. This is what’s on your mind this morning? You are obsessing, JT. There is no future in beating a dead horse. CNN ? Morning Joe? These have not been credible news sources for a good 10 years. Move on already. You are embarrassing yourself.

  16. LOL! The Dem troll was right on cue. Look at the times of mine and enigma’s comments. There is a coup going on, and pawns like enigma are the foot soldiers!

    1. Don’t worry, Nicky – the war economy will continue apace, President and Mrs. Kushner will still be in charge of innovative “business” ideas to gut social programs and taxes on the rich – here in the homeland, while promoting terrorism, invasions, and coups abroad – wherever Israel says they are needed.

  17. I saw the venerable Bob Schieffer, one of the last straight journalists, praising Trump’s speech on CNN Sunday. The host, John Berman, called Schieffer and “apologist” for having the temerity to speak his mind. JT is certainly being called that, and much worse these days. There is a purge on. Jimmy Fallon is simply civil to Trump and he is vilified by the MSM. Kudos JT. Your integrity is what brought many of us here.

  18. If I look up the word “apologist” in the dictionary I think I’ll see Turley’s picture. He seems to be saying it is impossible to obstruct an investigation if it has yet to announce an underlying crime and/or if the person also tried to stop it publicly. Good to know he at least thinks it’s “disturbing.”

    1. You said, “He seems to be saying it is impossible to obstruct an investigation if it has yet to announce an underlying crime and/or if the person also tried to stop it publicly.”

      And to think that people say you are a slow learner! Nope, you got the point really quick! Yeah, there needs to be an underlying crime. Kudos! Now, if you can just apologize to Trump for all the bad things you have said about him.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. There needs to be reasonable cause to have an investigation. If there were proof to begin with we could just skip that part. If we waited until there was absolute proof to even consider the possibility that would make us Congress. I apologize to Trump for not having yet said, “You’re fired!”

    2. Sorry, this is a bit long. It’s plucking from two articles I think particularly insightful (as far as they go) in describing what’s happening to Trump.

      […]the CIA might be framing a guilty man so to speak.[…] (The best line of the day)!

      Obama[‘s] eight years had a huge affect of normalizing perpetual war, and many organizations who should have known better collectively played along with it through silence, a very powerful silence as Obama normalized the drone war, made bipartisan the so-called misnamed War on Terror and so forth. When we get to issues like what Trump’s foreign policy is, the pressure on Trump and so forth, can the CIA be trusted? All those constellations of issues. There’s a been a sort of a dumbing down for lack of a better term politically among part of the progressive liberal, whatever you want to call it, Democratic Party align base.

      SNIP

      I think that has handicapped our capacities as organizations quite often to be discerning about what’s happening with Comey.

      Interesting read: http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19149:Warfare-State-at-War-with-Trump-Over-Russia%2C-as-Trump-Plans-Warfare-Against-Iran-in-Saudi-Arabia

      From another perspective…

      Let’s say you own a big US corporation but need help managing your domestic accounts. So you hire a bright, young man named Bruno who just graduated from Harvard Business School with a Masters in corporate finance. And the first day on the job, you discover that Bruno has secretly employed a private detective who has obtained subpoena power to dig through all of your business accounts, all your investments past and present, all your taxes going back decades, and any personal transactions you might have made in the last 20 years or so. And, oh yeah, and he also has the authority to interview anyone he chooses, including people who might have a grudge against you or who lost money on one of your dodgy real estate deals or who simply doesn’t like the way you comb your hair. And, of course, Bruno knows that the information he gathers is going to be deliberately tweaked to look as suspicious as possible, then it’s going to be leaked to the press and splashed across the headlines, then it’s going to be presented as evidence to a Grand Jury, and then, finally– after months of excruciating testimony and nonstop mud-slinging– it will be used in criminal proceedings that will lead your removal as CEO of your corporation.

      SNIP

      Rod Rosenstein is Bruno. The man is a skunk, there’s no two-ways about it.

      It’s worth going a little deeper into the article:

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/23/rosenstein-and-mueller-the-regime-change-tag-team/

      One does not have to be a Trump fan to be very concerned with the process of taking down a sitting President because he isn’t playing ball with the deep state. I don’t think you need any explanation of the inherit danger present and future in such a move regardless of who the sitting president is.

      1. I submit there are two other possibilities as to what’s happening “to Trump.” BTW I agree that with Rosenstein he is getting something different than he planned for but he might have played ball had he not been made the public scapegoat for firing Comey.
        1. There actually was some degree of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia. (I believe this likely to some degree, possibly at lower levels involving the true believers)
        2. Trump knows that a serious investigation into his finances will uncover unrelated crimes and that he has been compromised by many internationally including Russians. (More certain this is true based on known transactions.)

          1. Door number one as well, probably, but unlikely any collusion that amounts to much.

      2. I didn’t mean to ignore your comments about the normalization of the drone war which is a true thing. The Obama Doctrine if there is such a thing is full of compromises and based I think on what he believed he could do and not necessarily what he should. There were many other players in that drama but Obama played his part which I acknowledge.

        1. I didn’t mean to ignore your comments

          Didn’t take it that way. OTC, I appreciate your thoughtful response. Obama’s use of drones was a huge mistake in my opinion and surprising from a constitutional scholar. Hard or impossible to tell how that came about. All the supposedly legal “classified” justifications for killing American Citizens (or anyone outside a formal war) without judicial review are one of the most unsettling aspects in terms of precedent.

    3. No, no, no. Professor Turley is the unimpeachable jurist who sued Obama for “executive overreach.”

      Remember? That was historic; momentous, right? The Constitution was supported and reinforced.

      America will never experience corruption of its thesis and founding documents again, right?

Comments are closed.