• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

WaPo Op: Comey’s statement is sufficient evidence for an obstruction of justice case.

K

KSweeley

Member
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e:homepage/story

I helped prosecute Watergate. Comey’s statement is sufficient evidence for an obstruction of justice case.
By Philip Allen Lacovara

Philip Allen Lacovara, a former U.S. deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department, served as counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski.

In prepared testimony released on the eve of his appearance Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James B. Comey placed President Trump in the gunsights of a federal criminal investigation, laying out evidence sufficient for a case of obstruction of justice.

Comey proved what Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers carefully avoided admitting in their testimony on Wednesday — that the president had specifically attempted to shut off at least a major piece of what Trump calls the “Russia thing,” the investigation into the misleading statements by fired national security adviser Michael Flynn concerning his role in dealings with the Russians. This kind of presidential intervention in a pending criminal investigation has not been seen, to my knowledge, since the days of Richard Nixon and Watergate.

Comey’s statement meticulously detailed a series of interventions by Trump soliciting his assistance in getting the criminal probe dropped. These details are red meat for a prosecutor. Presumably, the team of experienced criminal prosecutors that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has assembled will be following up on this crucial testimony, which rests on contemporaneous memorandums that Comey was sufficiently alarmed to prepare immediately after receiving the president’s requests.

That both Coats and Rogers denied that they “felt pressured” provides no comfort for the president’s position. The obstruction of justice statute prohibits not only successful interference with pending criminal investigations but also any use of “threats” to “endeavor” to obstruct an investigation. Thus, it is the attempt or objective that is criminal, and Coats and Rogers were apparently unable to deny that the president had solicited their interference in the pending FBI investigation. If Coats and Rogers did not yield to the endeavor, kudos for them, but that is no excuse for the president.

Moreover, Comey’s testimony also supplies the element of “threats.” He vividly describes a dinner with the president on Jan. 27, which the president surprisingly limited to just the two of them. The president asked Comey whether he liked his job and wanted to continue in it, even though, before the inauguration, the president had asked Comey to stay on the job, and Comey had eagerly accepted.

Leaving little doubt about the price of continued retention, the president twice, according to Comey, told him that he expected “loyalty” from Comey, just as he did from everyone else around him.

Then, on Feb. 14, the president carefully structured another one-on-one meeting with Comey, specifically ordering Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to whom the FBI director ordinarily reports, to leave the Oval Office where Comey, Sessions and other national security officials (and Jared Kushner) had been meeting. At that point, the president laid his cards on the table, according to Comey: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Next, in phone calls on March 30 and April 11, the president solicited Comey’s help in removing the “cloud” over Trump resulting from the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible Trump campaign collusion. The president again demanded loyalty: “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.” He pressed Comey to make public statements exonerating the president, but Comey declined to do so.

The president dropped the other shoe on May 9, summarily firing Comey. The White House initially blamed this action on Comey’s actions during the 2016 campaign, but within the week Trump admitted that the cover story was a sham. He brazenly stated that he fired Comey in order to bring the “Russia thing” to a close, and he bragged to senior Russian officials in a private Oval Office meeting that this is what he thought that he had accomplished by sacking Comey.

Comey’s statement lays out a case against the president that consists of a tidy pattern, beginning with the demand for loyalty, the threat to terminate Comey’s job, the repeated requests to turn off the investigation into Flynn and the final infliction of career punishment for failing to succumb to the president’s requests, all followed by the president’s own concession about his motive. Any experienced prosecutor would see these facts as establishing a prima facie case of obstruction of justice.

The ball now is in Mueller’s court to decide whether he has (or will have) enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction and, if so, whether to reach the same conclusion that I reached in the Nixon investigation — that, like everyone else in our system, a president is accountable for committing a federal crime.
Click to expand...
 
L

LotusHD

Banned
latest
 
S

Shoeless

Member
I don't know Trump would react to a "You see, I was right, they weren't investigating me!" only to have it immediately turn into "But they are now."
 
H

HeartlessNobody213

Member
Going to be a long and interesting year or years ahead of us.

It will take time but if there is something to find, Muller will be the one to find it.
 
P

pa22word

Member
Paul Ryan: "but...my....TAX CUTS!!!!!"

For real though, nothing is going to happen until either he starts dipping into the 20s approval wise (thus losing his and the GOP's base) or the house flips.
 
N

newjeruse

Member
Great. I have no doubt Trump will suffer zero consequences like every other thing that has happened in his life. Prove me wrong.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Aselith said:
I don't know how much you've been paying attention but the Senate is moving on this.
Click to expand...

I've been paying attention, but I'm not sure you realize the numbers needed to convict and remove from office. We're talking 66 votes, 2/3rds of the Senate. And the House has to vote on it first.

rambis said:
Congress has nothing to do with this. Its up to Rosenstein to prosecute based on Muellers recomendation.
Click to expand...

Congress are the ones tasked with impeachment, it's absolutely on them. If they refuse to impeach then nothing happens.
 
P

Pastry

Banned
Can't a special prosecutor only recommend impeachment and prosecution? They don't actually have the power to do anything to the president?
 
I

Ithil

Member
B-Dubs said:
I've been paying attention, but I'm not sure you realize the numbers needed to convict and remove from office.



Congress are the ones tasked with impeachment, it's absolutely on them. If they refuse to impeach then nothing happens.
Click to expand...

If people from Trump's campaign are being charged with crimes as a result of Mueller's investigation and Trump is implicated in shit (including the cover-up), they will have to impeach, because to refuse to do so would hurt them more than the actual impeachment (which might very well destroy their party for several years so you can imagine how much refusing to impeach a criminal president would hurt).

However, Mueller's investigation is probably going to be slow and meticulous, it might not conclude for several years. By then the GOP might have lost the House in 2018 anyway.
 
R

rambis

Banned
Pastry said:
Can't a special prosecutor only recommend impeachment and prosecution? They don't actually have the power to do anything to the president?
Click to expand...
Mueller can convene a grand jury and seek indictment. Rosenstein has veto power but they dont need congress.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Ithil said:
If people from Trump's campaign are being charged with crimes as a result of Mueller's investigation and Trump is implicated in shit (including the cover-up), they will have to impeach, because to refuse to do so would hurt them more than the actual impeachment (which might very well destroy their party for several years so you can imagine how much refusing to impeach a criminal president would hurt).

However, Mueller's investigation is probably going to be slow and meticulous, it might not conclude for several years. By then the GOP might have lost the House in 2018 anyway.
Click to expand...

They'd be destroyed either way, let's be real. My point remains, with the current make-up of the House I wouldn't expect anything unless Mueller finds evidence Trump was working directly for Putin.

rambis said:
Mueller can convene a grand jury and seek indictment. Rosenstein has veto power but they dont need congress.
Click to expand...

They absolutely need Congress to act if they want to get Trump. Post an article saying otherwise.
 
W

WiiredShawn

Member
pa22word said:
Without the house moving then impeachment isn't happening regardless of what the senate does.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that Republicans could end up in a very awkward situation, at the least.

If they impeach Trump, they allow Democrats to say, "They rallied behind a president who didn't respect our laws." If they don't impeach Trump, they allow Democrats to say, "They're protecting a president who doesn't respect our laws."

Moderate Republicans and independents may not be pleased with either case.
 
N

nomis

Member
Speevy said:
Stop trying to make impeach happen. It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Why do people like you even bother posting? If you're going to be endlessly cynical so that you don't get your hopes up like election night, I suggest ignoring the growing wave of stories about criminal investigations of the Trump orbit.

It'll save you the heartbreak and the rest of us the migraine of having to see the same hecantkeepgettingawaywithit_jessie.gif responses
 
Mikey Jr.

Mikey Jr.

Member
For some reason, in this messed up system, Trump would have to kill someone in cold blood, with 50 journalists around, live on tv, and like Trump's grandma near him pointing to the date of the current newspaper before anything would be done.

He's like oil. Nothing sticks to the fucker.
 
P

pa22word

Member
WiiredShawn said:
I'd like to think that Republicans could end up in a very awkward situation, at the least.

If they impeach Trump, they allow Democrats to say, "They rallied behind a president who didn't respect our laws." If they don't impeach Trump, they allow Democrats to say, "They're protecting a president who doesn't respect our laws."

Moderate Republicans and independents may not be pleased with either case.
Click to expand...
Like I said before in my first post: until his numbers are in the 20s nothing is going to happen. If you actually want trump gone then you need to make Paul Ryan terrified enough to be thinking he's not going to get his tax cuts without impeaching trump.
 
R

rambis

Banned
B-Dubs said:
They'd be destroyed either way, let's be real. My point remains, with the current make-up of the House I wouldn't expect anything unless Mueller finds evidence Trump was working directly for Putin.



They absolutely need Congress to act if they want to get Trump. Post an article saying otherwise.
Click to expand...
Did you read the OP?
The ball now is in Mueller’s court to decide whether he has (or will have) enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction and, if so, whether to reach the same conclusion that I reached in the Nixon investigation — that, like everyone else in our system, a president is accountable for committing a federal crime
Click to expand...
.

Its in Rosensteins appointment letter.
 
W

wandering

Banned
nomis said:
Why do people like you even bother posting? If you're going to be endlessly cynical so that you don't get your hopes up like election night, I suggest ignoring the growing wave of stories about criminal investigations of the Trump orbit.

It'll save you the heartbreak and the rest of us the migraine of having to see the same hecantkeepgettingawaywithit_jessie.gif responses
Click to expand...

Not that I'm any more a fan of those kinds of posts but impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. It doesn't matter what lawyers say as long as Paul Ryan remains a spineless slime.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
rambis said:
Did you read the OP?
.

Its in Rosensteins appointment letter.
Click to expand...

Mueller can charge Trump all he wants, but if Congress refuses to move then nothing happens. I don't think you understand how the process works, Trump isn't going to get tried by a normal court. The President of the United States gets tried by the US Senate when he's accused of breaking a law. You really need to go read up on what happened with Nixon.
 
B

BudokaiMR2

Member
B-Dubs said:
I've been paying attention, but I'm not sure you realize the numbers needed to convict and remove from office. We're talking 66 votes, 2/3rds of the Senate. And the House has to vote on it first.



Congress are the ones tasked with impeachment, it's absolutely on them. If they refuse to impeach then nothing happens.
Click to expand...

Although I do expect them to only do it when dragged kicking and screaming, if charges are brought against Trump that is exactly what is going to happen I think.

At the end of the day, these people want to keep the cushy positions and making a decision to not impeach despite hard evidence showing otherwise would give future opponents some pretty incredible and damaging ammo to use against them in the future.

I don't think even the most idiotic of Republicans truly believe that history (even in the short term) is going to look back positively on Trump's presidency and giving opponents the ability to take them to task for allowing his shit presidency to go on could end a lot of careers.

I might be putting too much faith in their mental faculties...
 
N

nomis

Member
wandering said:
Not that I'm any more a fan of those kinds of posts but impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. It doesn't matter what lawyers say as long as Paul Ryan remains a spineless slime.
Click to expand...

of course, but I see them in basically every thread about Trump or his people being in hot water because it's always tangentially related to talk of impeachment
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
But... But Sean Hannity stated that Comey could have committed a felony by not informing someone that Trump was committing obstruction of justice!111!!
 
T

Twio

Member
nomis said:
Why do people like you even bother posting? If you're going to be endlessly cynical so that you don't get your hopes up like election night, I suggest ignoring the growing wave of stories about criminal investigations of the Trump orbit.

It'll save you the heartbreak and the rest of us the migraine of having to see the same hecantkeepgettingawaywithit_jessie.gif responses
Click to expand...

They were just making a Mean Girls reference

(I think)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
5K
ManaByte replied
Trump Attorneys Lay Out 2 Arguments Against Obstruction-of-Justice Probe to Mueller
2 3
128
22K
Garlador replied
Trump declares ‘total vindication’ in tweet on Comey
2 3 4 5 6
280
46K
Surfinn replied
NYT: Mueller Has Early Draft of Trump Letter Giving Reasons for Firing Comey
2 3 4 5 6
259
51K
Dubbedinenglish replied
CNN: Comey now believes Trump was trying to influence him, sources say
2 3
114
27K
Username1198 replied
Top Bottom