Comey's not-so-nothingburger nothingburger

BruceLeeOnTRT said:
Trump isn't going anywhere, Comey just made himself look like a fool, and the tears on here are delicious. You guys haven't gotten one thing right since this election started.

It's highly entertaining watching some of you fall for the same fake news over and over again.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry to inform you that we were all right about one thing, that Trump would be a dog shit president.

Signed,
Covfefe
 
HomerThompson said:
Alan Derschowitz is a zillion year old hack.
Click to expand...
Typical response by a liberal cuck right here...
an accomplished old professor: "Trump did not obstruct justice based on Comey's testimony"
liberal cuck: "you're a zillion years old!"
1469380851-giphy.gif
 
Cake4Breakfast said:
That is one professor's opinion. It isn't the only opinion about a very complex issue legally and politically.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40208812

Mr Comey's oral testimony gave crucial - and legally significant - insight into how he interpreted the president's words, said Alex Whiting, a Harvard Law professor and former federal prosecutor.

"The critical aspect of an obstruction case is assessing the intent of the speaker and whether it was corrupt," Mr Whiting said. "People communicate with much more than words, and some of the best evidence for what a speaker meant can be how the speaker was understood at the time."

Mr Comey's testified on Thursday that he clearly understood Mr Trump to be pushing him to drop the inquiry. We also heard for the first time that the president cleared the room before making the remarks, removing even Mr Comey's boss, the attorney general.

Added to that, Mr Comey, who has a long history of high-profile legal positions and who took meticulous notes directly after his meetings with the president, was a "dream witness", Mr Whiting said. "I think if you take together his written and oral testimony together, he has now made a prima facie case of obstruction of justice.

"Whether it's a case that should be prosecuted, or whether it merits impeachment, those are separate questions, but the elements are now there for obstruction. There was a corrupt intent to impede justice. I think you could charge this case."

Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, also said that Mr Comey's oral testimony had changed the legal picture.

"Comey may not have added specific pieces of information, but the way he presented himself and consistency of his account, and the coherency of the account, all of these things are important," he said.

"In his oral testimony, he made it clearer that he believed Trump was trying to obstruct justice. He said that when Trump used the word hope, he understood that to be a command of some sort, and that strengthens the case for obstruction.

"It was a borderline case before, now it is somewhat stronger."

But the case remains essentially circumstantial, said Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at University of North Carolina who testified at the Clinton impeachment hearings.

"Everybody is parsing the words of course, but I don't know that Comey's testimony strengthens or weakens an obstruction case," he said. The meetings described by Mr Comey were however "clearly inappropriate", he said. "This is simply not how Americans want a president to conduct himself."

The testimony would serve to strengthen Mr Comey's credibility with congress, Mr Gerhardt said, possibly at the expense of the president.

"Comey put his credibility on the line today and he did it in a very public way," he said. "Now it's a credibility contest between him and the president, and I think it's safe to say Comey is winning that contest."

That could prove crucial if legal action were ever taken over this affair. Were the president to face impeachment or criminal proceedings, the former FBI director would "without doubt" be a central witness, Mr Whiting said, and his credibility against Mr Trump's would be key to the case.

Both those scenarios remain unlikely however, at least for the meantime. It is effectively impossible to bring criminal charges against a sitting president - the case would have to be brought by the executive branch, of which Mr Trump is the boss.

As for impeachment, there is political resonance to obstruction of justice charges - it factored in the past two impeachments, against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton - but it is still highly unlikely. The Republican party controls both houses of congress, and a special counsel investigation into the Russia affair is only in its infancy.

So Mr Comey's testimony will not trigger legal proceedings any time soon, but it does have the potential to damage the president's political standing and resonate with moderate voters, Mr Posner said.

"Obstruction of justice is clearly on the minds of a lot of people and I think it damages the president politically," he said. "He continues to have supporters of course. But for many people in the middle, their opinion of the president will decline and their reservations will strengthen."
Click to expand...
Some poor legal analysis there. These so called experts seemed to gloss right over the fact that Trump wanted Comey to keep investigating and indeed find out if any one on Trump's team was in the wrong. That's the crux of it. Why bother with obstruction just to protect Flynn if he could just pardon Flynn?

Desperation can cloud judgment. The left, including their little law 'experts' are so desperate. And so rattled. It'd be a bit amusing if it wasn't so unnecessarily distracting from the president's focus and agenda.
 
TheComebackKid said:
I called it. The libs are now just hanging on to Comeys interpretation of Trumps eyebrow movement, although he 'could be wrong', as proof of something guilty or nefarious.

They bought into to all this fake news for months and now refuse to let it go.
Click to expand...
That's about it in a nutshell TCK. I'd feel sorry for them but they are hindering the country and don't deserve sympathy
 
Diamond Jim said:
Click to expand...

No word yet on if it'll be public or private...


I think the obstruction charge if one is to come hinges on all the testimony Comey gave in his private hearing. Given right after that the committees requested Comey's memos and Trump's recordings. I hope Trump does go under oath as he said he would. But he'll probably back track on that one
 
Bargey said:
Some poor legal analysis there. These so called experts seemed to gloss right over the fact that Trump wanted Comey to keep investigating and indeed find out if any one on Trump's team was in the wrong. That's the crux of it. Why bother with obstruction just to protect Flynn if he could just pardon Flynn?

Desperation can cloud judgment. The left, including their little law 'experts' are so desperate. And so rattled. It'd be a bit amusing if it wasn't so unnecessarily distracting from the president's focus and agenda.
Click to expand...

Are you fucking serious? Why protect Flynn?<36>

What do you think the political fallout would be if he pardoned Flynn?

Leave political analysis to other people and get your fucking shine box.
 
Hans Gruber said:
No. Rational is going on for months about a fake Russia story with no evidence and the when that falls apart....LARPing and pretending that obstruction of justice will be a thing

The left is made up of a bunch of delusional LARPers now. Congrats
Click to expand...
Comey's firing lead the the appointment of a special prosecutor who is conducting an independent investigation as we speak. How about waiting for the results of the Mueller investigation before making grand declarations.
 
Robert Mueller

Justice Department deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Cour

Jeannie Rhee, a former deputy assistant attorney general and a partner in the investigations practice at WilmerHale

Andrew Weissmann, the chief of the Justice Department's fraud section who oversaw corruption investigations including the probe into cheating by Volkswagen on diesel emissions tests over

Aaron Zebley, who previously served as Mueller's chief of staff at the FBI

James Quarles, who worked on the Watergate investigation as a young prosecutor

Mueller is obviously stocking up on yuge good lawyers for no reason
 
Yesterday Trump says he never told Comey he "hoped" he'd drop the investigation.

Tonight on Fox, Don Jr. says his dad told Comey he hoped but that's not a real order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,711
Messages
55,436,414
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top