you should have given us the citation to the code so everyone would have had a chance to realize this was not tampering with a courtroom witness. Trump speaking with the FBI director... is not Obstruction of Justice. Turley: The Comey Memo Offers No Proof for Impeachment of Trump Published May 17, 2017 By Jonathan Turley, The Hill With the scandal du jour of the Comey memo, President Donald Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia looks less like a diplomatic flight as fleeing the jurisdiction. For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another." Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. Then there is the question of corruptly influencing what? There is no indication of a grand jury proceeding at the time of the Valentine's Day meeting between Trump and Comey. Obstruction cases generally are built around judicial proceedings — not Oval Office meetings.
My 'hoax story' is being investigated by the FBI and Republicans in Congress. Your story was from a paid Fox shill who admitted he made a fool out of you yesterday. And I don't have to prove shit, if I prove something, you will ignore it and move on to another deflection. Facts don't matter to you people at all, it's just a way to deflect the conversation. First quote me where I said that there was a single case where FBI personal memos led to the conviction of any individual. I will wait. The only person full of shit is you who just makes stuff up and then asks for evidence for your own BS.
Sureeeeeeeeeee, he was just 'speaking' And Lynch was just speaking with Bill Clinton right? I am sure you were ok with that too? Unfuckingbelievable!!!!
Just more bullshit from the liberal media, looks like they are trying to turn it into obstruction of justice when Comey didnt think it was obstruction of justice. James Comey was lying in wait. His gun was cocked, he took aim and fired. But his weapon was empty. Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump. Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation. Good lawyers do that routinely. Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation. Those who don’t know the first thing about the law immediately began hurling words like “obstruction of justice”, “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “impeachment“. Typically, these people don’t know what they don’t know. Here is what we do know. Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law. So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it. Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime. There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do. Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/16/gregg-jarrett-comeys-revenge-is-gun-without-powder.html
You can't prove shit. It's not for want of trying. You said an FBI memo can be used as evidence. No it can't. It's merely a personal memo, not proof of anything.
First, under the law FBI only has to report to the DOJ at the end of the investigation, not during it. Comey only had to inform other FBI officials of it and he did. Second, it wasn't obstruction until Comey was fired.
Challenge accepted Yes and it has been "As the New York Times notes, these memos “are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.” The Times pointed to that famous incident back during the George W. Bush administration when Comey testified that there had been a race to reach the bedside of an ill Attorney General John Ashcroft as the FBI and senior White House officials fought over warrantless wiretapping. When the White House disputed Comey's version, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller's contemporaneous notes were used as confirmation." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...of-james-comeys-memos/?utm_term=.d24864887994 Your defeat accepted - AGAIN!
What does the FBI do with information and evidence gathered during an investigation? If a possible violation of federal law under the jurisdiction of the FBI has occurred, the Bureau will conduct an investigation. The information and evidence gathered in the course of that investigation are then presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who will determine whether or not prosecution or further action is warranted. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, evidence is either returned or retained for court.
Great! When do we get actual proof? Oh yeah, I know, in two years or something. Got it. Interesting, but hard for me to accept that. The article cannot be viewed without a subscription to the Washington Compost. Do you have the full article so I may get the context? Your copied paragraph makes it difficult to determine whether this memo was the sole "evidence" that lead to anything (which is what I asked you). It sounds as it it were merely used to confirm Comey's statement, not as evidence to convict or indict anyone.