Below is my column in USA Today on the current status of the evidence against President Donald Trump for either indictment or impeachment. While I do not agree with the White House that former FBI Director James Comey
“completely vindicated” the President, I do not believe that the testimony materially altered the legal position of the President. I believe that Comey both helped and hurt himself. He did an excellent job in explaining why he only discussed the content of the memos with his staff, but he also admitted to being a leaker and showed repeated failures in ethical confrontations with superiors. There is reportedly a call for Comey to return. He may find the return appearance more challenging than the first.
The release of former FBI director James Comey’s testimony on Wednesday was received with the same breathless reactions that have long characterized coverage of the Russian investigation. CNN ran comments that the Comey testimony was nothing short of the Watergate tapes. The desire for some indictable or impeachable offense by President Trump has distorted the legal analysis to an alarming degree. Analysts seem far too thrilled by the possibility of a crime by Trump. The legal fact is that Comey’s testimony does not establish a prima facie — or even a strong — case for obstruction.
It is certainly true that if Trump made these comments, his conduct is wildly inappropriate. However, talking like Tony Soprano does not make you Tony Soprano. Trump is not the first president to express dissatisfaction with an investigation by the Justice Department. Former president Bill Clinton made clear his own dissatisfaction with the investigations of his administration under then-Attorney General Janet Reno. It is no surprise that Trump wanted to see these investigations end. Indeed, he had a virtual hashtag to that effect.
The crime of obstruction of justice has not been defined as broadly as suggested by commentators. While there are a couple of courts with more expansive interpretations, the crime is generally linked to obstructing a pending proceeding as opposed to an investigation. Most courts have rejected the application of obstruction provisions to mere investigations. The manual used by federal prosecutors makes that same distinction. Even if a prosecutor was able to extend the definition of obstruction, there would remain the need to show that Trump sought to “corruptly” influence the investigation. Trump telling Comey that Michael Flynn is “a good guy,” and that he hoped Comey would let the matter drop is hardly a “cancer,” let alone a crime, growing on the presidency.
Flynn had just resigned the day before Trump allegedly asked Comey whether he could now drop the investigation of Flynn. Trump had been told by Comey that he is not under investigation (three alleged confirmations by Comey that are equally inappropriate). Trump could say he felt Flynn had suffered enough. For a defense lawyer, a charge of obstruction on these facts would be a target-rich environment.
The mere fact that Trump asked to speak to Comey alone would not implicate the president in obstruction. Trump could argue that he sought to exclude Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others who were facing calls for recusal in the investigation. He could claim that he viewed this as a personal inquiry on behalf of a friend. He was, of course, wrong. Dead wrong in asking such a grossly improper question. However, to treat the desire of a private conversation as inescapable evidence of obstruction is to deny the obvious defenses in the case.
In the end, a prosecutor should never seek to indict a president absent a lead-pipe cinch of a case. This is no lead-pipe cinch. Of course, there is also the problem of actually indicting a sitting president if there was a crime and evidence to fit it. Many academics believe that a sitting president cannot be indicted. It remains an open question. After all, judges have faced indictment before impeachments. Yet, the president remains the head of the executive branch handling such prosecutions.
The proper course is for a president to be impeached and removed before any prosecution. It is no gift to a president. Impeachments are not subject to the rules of evidence or even the criminal code. Presidents can face a much broader array of evidentiary demands with far less protection under due process rules. A president can also be impeached for acts that are not technically crimes. Abuse of office is a classic example. However, analogies to Watergate show little understanding of those articles of impeachment. The first article against President Nixon was an obstruction allegation, but it was expressly linked to actual and serious crimes, including the criminal break-in at the Watergate. The article specifically listed an array of personal actions taken by Nixon and his subordinates to procure false statements, obstruct investigators, and “to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.”
Ironically, those who want a criminal charge on this record are committing the very offense that they accuse Trump of committing: disregarding the law to achieve their desired goal. It would be a highly dangerous interpretation to allow obstruction charges at this stage. If prosecutors can charge people at the investigation stage of cases, a wide array of comments or conduct could be criminalized. It is quite common to have such issues arise early in criminal cases. Courts have limited the crime precisely to avoid this type of open-ended crime where prosecutors could threaten potential witnesses with charges unless they cooperated.
We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless … or simply being Donald Trump.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“The mere fact that Trump asked to speak to Comey alone ”
Did Trump ask to speak alone or did Comey ask?
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf Comey’s written testimony
“The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities.
***We also agreed I would do it alone*** to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.”
(asterisks mine)
So there was no President Trump collusion now we go on to obstruction of justice. What next? The Bloodless Coup continues. After this if God was running as a Dum I’d vote for satan.
@anonymous, June 11, 2017 at 1:34 am
“‘Soft Coup’ on Trump, Hiding in Plain Sight”
“However, amid the mainstream media’s increasingly frenzied talk about Trump’s potential impeachment, this other remarkable story – how the U.S. Intelligence Community is moving to reverse the outcome of a presidential election – is getting ignored in plain sight.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/08/soft-coup-on-trump-hiding-in-plain-sight/
Yes, there’s definitely something of a rift between the Shallow and the Deep (National Security) States.
Owing to the disparity in their respective powers, not the least of which is the Deep State’s propaganda machine, the Corporate Media, and to Trump’s personal weaknesses, I’m more convinced than ever that he will soon come to the realization that running for the US presidency was the worst business decision he’s ever made in his life.
@Ken Rogers:
“…I’m more convinced than ever that he will soon come to the realization that running for the US presidency was the worst business decision he’s ever made in his life.”
He may already realize it.
Here’s the real problem. There are things Trump could be impeached for right now. One of them is war crimes. This murderous illegality doesn’t count because Democrats and Republicans alike are all on board.
If citizens really cared about impeaching Trump then Democrats can stop their madness and start concentrating on actual heinous crimes. This would be difficult because they have been in love with Obama for so long, a man who has committed these same crimes. But they could get some principles and renounce heinous war crimes no matter who is doing them. By such methods they could possibly get Trump impeached. There are some high profile Republicans who would join them, along with people who are independent of either major party. It’s an idea and there is a reason that neither many of the powerful or many ordinary citizens care one whit to bring up these crimes as a way to impeach Trump. We have come to a horrible place in this nation when such as this is tolerated by our citizens.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/yemen-war-deaths-cholera-epidemic-dying-every-hour-a7782341.html
Here’s a reminder of how the concept of “Looking Forward” became the norm.This is from Jan 11, 2009
Our distinguished host is quoted at the end as well. Not sure things worked out as he suggested.
Just saying.
https://thinkprogress.org/obama-on-appointing-special-prosecutor-to-investigate-bushs-crimes-we-need-to-look-forward-e66d86502992
The Local and National Media are Zionist Liars
According to U.S. and International Law all the U.S. / Israeli invasions are Wars of Aggression, War Crimes.
These are the same crimes the Nazis committed.
Millions of men, women and children have been murdered / maimed due to these invasions.
Washington, DC = Nazi Berlin.
Anyone who supports the Republicans, Democrats, Israel & the Mainstream Media are accomplices to murder and have blood on their hands. They are Zionist Nazi Terrorists.
Congress, Justice Department, FBI & Court System are corrupt cowards else they would have indicted the Bush / Obama administrations & Israel for 9/11 and War Crimes years ago.
The International Criminal Court & U.S. courts are a joke. The U.S. and Israel are guilty of massive War Crimes for years. The ‘War on Terror’ is an Israeli / U.S. Fraud.
http://buenavistamall.com/USIsrael.jpg
P, Gina Haspel is the new Deputy Director of the CIA.
We just went officially dark for the foreseeable future.
Ain’t no trials ever going to happen unless the current POTUS runs his mouth about something he gets briefed on.
Ask this question: Can the President be denied access to anything?
I suspect that he has asked some questions and the Intel folks are postponing his request while well informed Congressional members figure out how to get rid of him before he goes public with his requests.
At that point things could get interesting. Play that one out a few steps.
There, that’s my slant on what you propose.
For example, The President could request to see the footage, if not already destroyed, of the cameras from a building in Crystal City that might show a clearer picture of just exactly hit the Pentagon on 911.
That kind of thing.
What’s worse? Telling the POTUS he can’t see evidence the government is holding?
Or after he leaves office, or with him, while he’s still in office,that he was denied access?
Play that one out a few clicks.
Treason or whitleblower grande?
Not pretty.
I’m sure he is making a lot of Intel folks quite nervous.
Jill –
Excellent post. Unfortunately, human nature works in such a way that progress comes slowly, by degrees.
Democrats and Republicans alike operate by the standards as most employees everywhere; i.e, eschewing that which has the potential of causing them to lose their job. Ergo, do not expect your common sense idea to gain any traction.
HRC and her supporters remind me of Scarlet Overkill and the minions.
How coincidental that Scarlet wants the Queen’s crown.
Even her husband Herb has some WJC attributes.
Those bad Clinton supporters forced Flynn and Kushner to lie. Shame on them for being mean to such honest men.
Right.
Oh yeah, what is the name of the newest Supreme Court justice?
Flynn and Kushner etc, all peripheral damage. Aides are disposable.
Gorsuch is for life.
Her majesty is still not President.
Could of had Bernie.
Tell me who has buyer’s remorse now?
Bernie gave one of the best anti-Trump speeches ever last night. He was a far better choice because he stood for something like Corbyn in Britain does. Clinton needs to go away and spend time with her grandchildren and realize she was better off losing because she too would have been investigated and the stress of all that is horrendous but particularly so on an elderly person.
Marin,….
-You should also be concerned about Bernie’s health.
He’s carry a heavy load of self-righteous indignation for a 75 year old man, and he may pop a cork.
“he’s carrying”
This is all a hissy fit contrived by Lady Macbeth and her enablers to explain how she got her ass kicked by an amateur politician.
DIng DIng Ding!
Winner, Winner Freakin’ Chicken Dinner!
Best summation EVER!
If Trump lies when he is deposed, he will on the path of Bill Clinton.
“We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless … or simply being Donald Trump.”
Trump is well beyond boorish or clueless. He is incompetent and moves, as he always has, just above the law, with an army of lawyers to obfuscate while creating the chaos that further clouds the situation(s). At this point Trump can reverse his legacy with some competent moves, none so far. However, the foundation set by his incessant lying, disregard for propriety, and general incompetence demands complete disclosure. Let’s see those tax returns. Let’s interview openly, Sessions, Trump, Flynn, Comey again if necessary, etc, until all the info is surfaced. ‘Being Donald Trump’ thus far has given us the consummate liar as President, an incompetent buffoon that has little to no interest in or idea of the welfare of the nation; just a desire to be right regardless of how wrong all this is. Being in the same room with Trump must make ones skin crawl.
But we don’t get to overthrow the election. This is bigger than Trump.
Hillary rightly, if hypocritically made the point that if we do not accept the results of the election, there is great peril for our Republic.
When have you EVER suggested a replacement for DJT?
What activism have you partaken in to suggest a new direction for our country?
Complaining ad nauseam about reality will not do anything except diminish your credibility as a potential agent of change.
Regardless of how offensive the ‘swamp’ seems, Trump is not only more offensive as he is the swamp incarnate, but he is unhinged. The underlying problem here is the system that presents the ilk of Trump, Clinton, etc. Special interests and concentrated money must be taken out of the equation. This is done in the more successful democracies but for the reason of American arrogance and historic ego, it seems to represent to too many what the forefathers meant. Special interests and concentrated money create and maintain a limited system. When there are only two parties, neither one would advocate for a third and ideally a fourth as that would diminish them. However, multiple parties presented as choices has proven to advance the working democracies of the advanced nations. The US is running on momentum and not a healthy democracy.
The argument that Trump is the one to break this impasse is as ludicrous as his hairdo. The man is a product of impasse and chaos. Throughout history our worst leaders have come out of chaos and impasse. To get out of this swamp America needs to address the various opinions of Americans. To do that there must be a significant reduction in what stands in the way, cliques, oligarchs, and mindless adherence to false sacred ideals. The worst possible choice in this recent selection was Trump. The only reason he got in was the level of his lies matched the level of frustration.
Pence or Clinton would have been less evil, more competent. Sanders is a generation in the future. Without the system we have today, frozen in an oligarchical grip, there would be many leaders like Sanders rising to be viewed by the voters. The problem in a nutshell is that the system is perverse and presents two of the worst choices available. What America is missing is that it actually argues over which one is more or less evil. Both are not leadership material, but minor tools used by the special interest and concentrated money that in reality run us.
You say that special interests and concentrated money must be taken out of the equation. You know that Trump sees the MSM corporate complex as a special interest with its own political agenda just like all the other special interests in Washington, right? He is exposing them and taking them head on. The Clinton campaign’s outright collusion with at least 50 some ‘journalists’ was exposed by the Podesta emails. Hillary is bought and paid for AND her campaign was caught colluding with the media. How on earth would putting her in the White House change anything in Washington? Trump was clearly the better choice to shake things up.
You need some new material issac. You used incompetent 3 times in this short paragraph which reminded me of one very important fact: That incompetent man is the President of the United States. How incompetent does that make all his challengers?
Go ahead push for his removal. Be satisfied that he just had to go for the benefit of our country.
Do you really want Mike Pence and possibly Ben Sasse or Tom Cotton as VP?
I’ll take the rookie buffoon any day over professionals who as you say, using your exact words except replacing incompetent with competent:
“He is competent and moves, as he always has, just above the law, with an army of lawyers to obfuscate while creating the chaos that further clouds the situation(s).”
Go back and reread your amended statement meanwhile substituting Pence or any other establishment pol for Trump.
Adapt my friend.
“Trump could argue that he sought to exclude Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others who were facing calls for recusal in the investigation.”
Check the timeline. It would be pointed out that these calls were not made until later. Because of the investigation Comey knew it was a probability that Sessions would have to recuse himself from the Russian investigation which is why he did not inform the AG of the content of the meeting. Trump did not know. Or maybe Trump also knew that Sessions was meeting with the Russians and continuing the Flynn investigation would uncover the fact of Sessions’ meetings.
From the Nixon impeachment “to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.”
Like discussing the removal of sanctions against the Russians as private citizens? We still don’t know what rocks have been overturned in the investigation, nor what rocks are still waiting. It’s entirely possible that Flynn, Sessions, Kushner, et al were meeting with the Russians at Trump’s direction during the campaign. Was Trump knowledgeable and involved with the Russians during the campaign? It’s very possible that Trump was attempting to stop the investigation of Flynn to protect his own backside. If the investigation has found this out, we won’t have heard about it, yet.
In the end I believe that Trump will be impeached. As a private citizen he can face criminal RICO charges, along with Russians who have already been charged, and the investigation continues.
Bettykath,
Others also believe “that Trump will be impeached”.
I reviewed the “evidence” you laid out in the case fir impeachment.
“maybe Trump also knew”, “it’s entirely possible”, and “It’s very possible” are all phrases you used to express your suspicions of Trump.
“Maybe” if Trump is impeached the articles of impeachment will include “maybe”, or “it’s possible”, or “it’s very possible”.
But I think the House will need more than that to go on.
http://www.buenavistamall.com/trumpisrael2.jpg
I’m guessing you’re the news director f CNN.
PMPL
Peed my pants laughing
Donald Trump’s War Crimes
by Marjorie Cohn
Professor Emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trumps-war-crimes_us_58e7a2fae4b06f8c18beeaf9
The Trump Administration Murders Children
Let the Media Coverage of Manchester Victims Be a Model for All Young Victims of War
Amy Goodman: “Killing children is wrong, period. It is as wrong in Manchester as it is in Sanaa, Yemen”
https://soundcloud.com/amy-goodman-podcast/let-the-media-coverage-of-manchester-victims-be-a-model-for-all-young-victims-of-war
http://buenavistamall.com/trumpNazi2.jpg
Zionist Trump Ordered 8 Year Old American Girl & 8 other Children Murdered
Targeted Drone Attack on Yemen
Trump murders nine young children, wounds five: the full details of botched US raid in Yemen
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-02-09/nine-young-children-killed-the-full-details-of-botched-us-raid-in-yemen
Does that include Abdulrhaman al-Awlaki? He was personally targeted.
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by Obama.
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old American of Yemeni descent who was killed while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant in Yemen by a drone airstrike ordered by U.S. President Barack Obama on 14 October 2011.
http://buenavistamall.com/bushobamatrump2.jpg
according to our liberal elites in the law business nothing obama did was enough to impeach him . In light of this anything they say now is worthless
It might be worth noting, no one in congress legitimately attempted to impeach Obama, so there is that.
Obama will never be a “natural born citizen” and he will never be eligible for the presidency.
The Jay/Washington letter, July 1787, raised the presidential requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances.
The Ben Franklin letter to Charles Dumas, December 9, 1775, the Law of Nations: “… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.” “that copy..;has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
Definition of “natural born citizen” in the Law of Nations, Book 1, Ch. 19, Section 212:
“…in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Personally having close up knowledge of Nicaragua at he time in question i have no problem with the contra support. Nor did I support the Panama Canal Treaty which itself was marred and crooked. BUT in the end and after the required removal of Noreiga the country was able to get it’s act together and for the first time elect a President who wasn’t a General. and just a few year of 100 years of it’s existence complete the Canal Project. Nicaragua and it appears Guatemala the same. So cruz dedos or cross fingers that trend continues .
Don’t see how he will last 4 years.
Don’t see how he will last 4 years.
That statement fits very well in the timeline:
I don’t see how he will get the nomination. I don’t see how he will get elected
Next up:
<I don't see how he will get reelected.
Next Step: (CNN, MSLSD, Left in tears: “I can’t believe he win AGAIN”!). Let’s see this time it will be collusion with Martians.
Hear, hear!
‘Soft Coup’ on Trump, Hiding in Plain Sight
June 8, 2017
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/08/soft-coup-on-trump-hiding-in-plain-sight/
In the wake of Clinton’s shocking defeat and amid the Intelligence Community’s claims about Russian interference in the election, Flynn’s friendly relations with Russian leaders made him an obvious target.
Still, the notion of Obama holdovers taking Flynn out via dubious legal tactics – and their fueling of a McCarthyistic hysteria over Russia – normally might have raised more objections if not for the widespread disdain for Trump, his narcissistic behavior and his offensive policies, such as the “Muslim travel ban.”
However, amid the mainstream media’s increasingly frenzied talk about Trump’s potential impeachment, this other remarkable story – how the U.S. Intelligence Community is moving to reverse the outcome of a presidential election – is getting ignored in plain sight.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
The aforementioned article was written by Robert Parry.
What no mention of Comey’s collusion and obstruction with AG Lynch?
Yup, no mention either of Comey and the 24/7 media, asleep at the wheel for over 3 years while the BIGGEST Russian Collusion was going on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
Ter ber, one of my favorite sayings comes from a photographer named Lisette Model she was a mentor to Diane Arbus:
“There is nothing more mysterious than a fact clearly stated.”
You have nailed one of those mysterious things my friend.
My opinion of Mr Turley as a shill for the globalists is reinforced by this article….
It would be easy to say my opionion of Inalienable supposedly rights is in line with the misuse of the word inalienable. The Constituton and Declaration when it is used states unalienable meaning cannot be changed under any circumstances where as inalienable means can be changed under certain circumstances. It has no bearing nor weight in our Constitutional Republic system of government and is in the same category as saying ‘our democracy’ something that does not exist.
So I just leave the shallow, illiterate, and false response to the those that provide the substance for this blog and ignore the others except for my comment on those who violate their oath of office and and citizenship by taking allegiance to a foreign ideolgy are, in my opinion, not to be treated as citizens.
Two more important words. descriminate is wildly and incorrectly used and since I have discriminating culinary taste that should provide a hint. Which leads us to prejudice or pre judice or judgin before the facts in evidence have been offered and accepted. The proper method is post judice meaning judging after facts in evidence have been accepted.
Prior to that there must be a charge of a crime. or misdeed/ misdemeanour. that meets certain standards. In most cases the word intent as in a crime is the joint union of the act and the intent holds sway but not in cases of Natinal Security. It is a chargeable offense to file a document in the wrong place the the intent has nothing to do with it. while picking up lost articles on the playground and safeguarding in one’s secure locker rather than giving them to teacher, office or principal can hinge on the act and the intent before the student being expelled.
The Grand Jury phase or as it is known in the Constitution as impeachment determines IF a crime has or has not been committed. This is followed by a trial and as we’ve learned that objectively A is A subjectively is may not be is. Even with a confession of guilt thrown in by the defendent.
So it matters not how much how much or how little I respect or disrespect any of those involved. rule by mobocracy the follow on to an uncontrolled democracy is one thing and rule by direct violation of an oath of office by ignorning the law is another thing both wrong .
But now we wait to see the outcome not by trial of heavily biased personal opinons but for we’re not anywhere near a trial or grand jury proceedings but the outcome of a the Special Counselors work. Unlike a specials prosecutor or a special investigators his powers are plenipotentiary. That is not a welcome state for those of us who are not represented by the two warring factions but but it is Constitutional.
Post Judice is if nothing else the mark of a self governing citizen. while the opposite is…. more akin to a far different ideology.
But since the group I belong to and work with holds the controlling votes and does not try to replace that method by a coup of sorts I shall wait on the deliberations of Mr. Mueller.
He is just another typical liberal character pretending to be more objective . Anyone who visits the corrupt media and enjoys the sick scoffing of mentally ill mefia hacks is not someone who is that much different than the characters in the media .
And the real collusions go ignored.
Attempted 9 times since Feb. 2016, nothing to see here, move along.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/26/ig-probing-alleged-dhs-snooping-in-georgia-election-network.amp.html
My take on the Comey testimony is in sink with JT’s. There is much blather on CNN and Fox and all the media about this topic and it is much ado about nada. I do not think that there is evidence that Hillary was “with the Russians too” or that Trump or anyone colluded with them. Warrren Zevon has a good song about the Russians. Now we in America cannot speak to a Russian Ambassador or we will be barred from holding any public office. Jeso.
I’m pretty sure Professor Turley did not say this is much ado about nothing, but rather what came out does not rise to impeachment. There’s a large difference.
No. No evidence which could arise to impeachment. Perhaps America needs to step back. A question we should pose: “How was I to know, she was with the Russians too?” Heck, we were not even driving in Havana.