Trump Attorneys Lay Out 2 Arguments Against Obstruction-of-Justice Probe to Mueller

studyguy

Member
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...uction-of-justice-probe-to-mueller-1504207495
(Pastebin for those who can't see the WSJ)
WASHINGTON—Lawyers for Donald Trump have met several times with special counsel Robert Mueller in recent months and submitted memos arguing that the president didn't obstruct justice by firing former FBI chief James Comey and calling into question Mr. Comey's reliability as a potential witness, people familiar with the matter said.

One memo submitted to Mr. Mueller by the president's legal team in June laid out the case that Mr. Trump has the inherent authority under the constitution to hire and fire as he sees fit and therefore didn't obstruct justice when he fired Mr. Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in May, these people said.

Another memo submitted the same month outlined why they believe Mr. Comey would make an witness, calling him prone to exaggeration, unreliable in congressional testimony and the source of leaks to the news media, these people said.

Apparently this is the actual article Wittes was talking about. Trump lawyers all but confirming that they'll absolutely have to defend him against obstruction of justice now.
 
I guess the bombshell here is a) Mueller is clearly going after Trump for obstruction and b) his defence seems dumb? I dunno.
 
At least they're getting paid top dollar for this amateur hour bullshit.

Fleece that orange traitor for every last dime possible.
 
>_> that's your defense?

One memo submitted to Mr. Mueller by the president’s legal team in June laid out the case that Mr. Trump has the inherent authority under the constitution to hire and fire as he sees fit and therefore didn’t obstruct justice when he fired Mr. Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in May, these people said.
 
Right. Being an at will employer, doesn't give you carte blanche to fire someone if, say, they turn down your sexual advances.

Exactly. Like, Trump had the legal right to fire Comey. No one is arguing that. It's his motivations that are in question and could get him in trouble. Unless I am misunderstanding how Obstruction works.
 
One memo submitted to Mr. Mueller by the president’s legal team in June laid out the case that Mr. Trump has the inherent authority under the constitution to hire and fire as he sees fit and therefore didn’t obstruct justice when he fired Mr. Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in May, these people said.
"Come on man, just because Trump was obstructing justice by firing Comey doesn't mean he's guilty of obstruction of justice. He's president. He can do what he wants."
 
Aren't these the exact talking points that Trump and his ilk (Hannity, etc) have been saying publicly for months?

This is all they have? "I can fire him whenever I want, so I did? Plus, he's a leaker!"

The King can do as he likes! didn't work out so well for Joffrey.
 
This is apparently the second of two stories Wittes hinted at. The cannons never lie.
This is good, but hardly seems boom-worthy. Of course they're going to be preparing defenses. I was kinda hoping the second story would be a bit more dramatic, but I could be missing what's so big about this one.
 
I heard the other day a good example of how to characterize Obstruction of Justice.

It's not illegal to shred paper, but if you do it to hide a crime that is Obstruction of Justice.
 
This is good, but hardly seems boom-worthy. Of course they're going to be preparing defenses. I was kinda hoping the second story would be a bit more dramatic, but I could be missing what's so big about this one.

Already engaging in discussions with the special counsel though. The legal team is actively fighting charges that haven't come yet. Why? Because they're coming. The boom is that the president will ultimately be charged. IMO at least
 
Picture had three I think.

Only saw two but I looked quick.

This is good, but hardly seems boom-worthy. Of course they're going to be preparing defenses. I was kinda hoping the second story would be a bit more dramatic, but I could be missing what's so big about this one.

It's big because it confirms the stories about Mueller pursuing obstruction but also big because it shows their defense is laughably bad.
 
170517210646-comey-mueller-super-tease.jpg

...Right...
 
It almost reads as if Trump asked his lawyers to approach Mueller on why obstruction was not observed. They initiated discussion to try to dissuade the investigation for obstruction. Would lawyers normally do that?
 
There is such thing as context that surround a president's actions. He has the legal authority to do a lot of shit – but does his authority and actions make sense within the context of a groundbreaking investigation in which he himself is at the center of?

This is going to be a legal battle. Trump could've avoided ALL OF THIS if he would have just left Comey alone or fired him immediately upon his inauguration.
 
I think Trump is going to attempt to pardon himself, which will be a hilarious shitshow.
 
Those arguments are "just keep it to yourself and avoid the embarrassment" bad.
 
This is just as laughable as his doctor's note.

Mr. Trump has the inherent authority under the constitution to hire and fire as he sees fit and therefore didn’t obstruct justice when he fired Mr. Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in May
So... "Trump can do whatever he wants because he's Trump"?

they believe Mr. Comey would make an witness, calling him prone to exaggeration, unreliable in congressional testimony and the source of leaks to the news media
"You say that Trump is a loud, raving, completely incoherent and pathologically lying moron who leaks information? Well, Comey is too! So Trump is the best! Nyah!"
 
Top Bottom