Now, that it has finally started, this is interesting and informative. Comey seems honest. I hope to watch the rest later.

bearister;842845215 said:

---

---

damnit, i hoped to do some work while watching. but i have to give this 100% of my attention.

I thought Pence said that Flynn had lied to him with regard to his contacts with the Russians. Comey just testified that Yates advised Pence as head of the transition team that Flynn might be compromised concerning the Russians. Pence lied when he went on all the Sunday shows claiming ignorance. I wonder was Pence questioned by the FBI about what he knew and when he knew it?

BearNIt;842845234 said:

---

I thought Pence said that Flynn had lied to him with regard to his contacts with the Russians. Comey just testified that Yates advised Pence as head of the transition team that Flynn might be compromised concerning the Russians. Pence lied when he went on all the Sunday shows claiming ignorance. I wonder was Pence questioned by the FBI about what he knew and when he knew it?

---

Yates told the Trump's transition team of Flynn's Russian involvement. Pence was head of the Transition team.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/18/politics/mike-pence-michael-flynn-trump-russia/index.html

NYCGOBEARS;842845148 said:

---

Who does Comey report it to, Jeff Sessions? The guy who had to recuse himself and left Comey alone with Trump when Comey specifically asked him not to.

---

Rosenstein actually. The guy who wrote the memo which purportedly is the basis for his firing, and hired the special prosecutor Mueller.

wifeisafurd;842845197 said:

---

Thought I would take excerpts from a Harvard Law School article on Nixon (I have added some wording re: Trump and Clinton) so there is a better understanding of obstruction of justice from a criminal vs. an impeachment setting.
A president has constitutional authority to order the FBI to drop a criminal investigation. Does that mean the Constitution insulates the president from an obstruction-of -justice charge based on interference with the FBI's operations? Absolutely not.

Obstruction of justice is a federal crime in which someone "corruptly" attempts to "influence, obstruct or impede" the "due and proper administration of the law" in a pending proceeding, as stated in 18 U.S.Code 1505.

It is not only theoretically possible for a president to be guilty of obstructing investigations; President Richard M. Nixon would in fact have been removed from office over it had he not resigned. The first article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee alleged that Nixon had "prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice," by (among other things) "interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States [and] the Federal Bureau of investigation." [Note: Clinton got hit with an obstruction of justice charges as well.] How could a president be said to 'obstruct' something he has the constitutional power to shut down entirely? The FBI director reports to the president and it is the president's decision to delegate authority on investigations. In delegating that authority, presidents have wisely chosen to insulate the FBI from political interference. But the president still has the power and authority to direct the FBI how to do their job."

The answer lies in the concept of corruption. How could a president be said to "obstruct" something he has the constitutional power to shut down entirely? The answer lies in the concept of corruption. To establish the offense of obstructing an FBI investigation, federal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted "corruptly." Essentially, this means acting with an understanding that what one is doing is illegal, and with a purpose to subvert the due and proper administration of law.

Because of separation-of-powers principles, prosecutorial discretion is a basic feature of our criminal-justice system. Congress and the courts may not force the executive branch to pursue a case, no matter how serious the crime or compelling the evidence. Sometimes a politically fraught prosecution might divide the country and feed a perception of politicized law enforcement (which, one can safely assume, is why Donald Trump soured on the hot campaign idea of prosecuting Hillary Clinton once he became President Trump, and in fact ordered any follow-up investigations to stop).) The fact that one may disagree, even vigorously, with an exercise by the President of prosecutorial discretion does not make that exercise corrupt. To prove corruption, the abdication would have to be egregious and patent, because a president has at least as much discretion to decline investigation and prosecution as the agents and prosecutors who are his subordinates. Those subordinates exercise extraordinarily broad discretion, which, as courts have repeatedly acknowledged, is judicially unreviewable. As such, most legal experts believe it's unrealistic to expect the Justice Department to file criminal charges against a sitting President, and the immunities provided a President probably make it not legally possible


However, impeachable offenses [my add: the Constitution's term of art is "high crimes and misdemeanors"] need not be penal offenses indictable in a court of law. The issue in an impeachment proceeding is not whether a president (or other government official) is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the legal sense; it is whether the president has abused his power or otherwise violated his public trust. Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one. The defenses that would be available to a president in a criminal prosecution for obstruction would not be nearly as effective in an impeachment. In the latter, the president would not get off the hook by claiming that he had the broad discretion to take this or that questionable action. There would be no dispute about whether the president had discretion; the question would be whether this discretion was abused in a manner so indefensible that the president was not fit to wield such power.

---

Yes. As a for instance that should be obvious, as Trump rightly indicated on Twitter, he has authority to share classified info with a foreign power. If instead of sharing one isolated piece of info, he had given the Russians the launch codes and detailed info about every military secret we have, or if he started letting a foreign leader make all of his decisions- in other words acted like a puppet or an agent of a foreign government, he would not be breaking the law, but he'd be gone really fast. And this was something the founding fathers took seriously given the fact that much of the country still supported English rule. That is why parsing language on statutes misses the point

OaktownBear;842845243 said:

---

Yes. As a for instance that should be obvious, as Trump rightly indicated on Twitter, he has authority to share classified info with a foreign power. If instead of sharing one isolated piece of info, he had given the Russians the launch codes and detailed info about every military secret we have, or if he started letting a foreign leader make all of his decisions- in other words acted like a puppet or an agent of a foreign government, he would not be breaking the law, but he'd be gone really fast. And this was something the founding fathers took seriously given the fact that much of the country still supported English rule. That is why parsing language on statutes misses the point

---

This is why for this to have any legs, Dems must win the House. No one is getting prosecuting the next 4 years unless Mueller says otherwise.

wifeisafurd;842845245 said:

---

This is why for this to have any legs, Dems must win the House. No one is getting prosecuting the next 4 years unless Mueller says otherwise.

---

I can foresee the situation where Flynn and others get Scooter Libbied by Trump unless he is not around.

wifeisafurd;842845245 said:

---

This is why for this to have any legs, Dems must win the House. No one is getting prosecuting the next 4 years unless Mueller says otherwise.

---

Maybe, the Republican impeaching of Clinton was not necessarily a shrewd political move-sometimes it's better to let a President wallow in scandals-real or imagined-than concoct a show trial.

I'm admittedly not following this closely but what I've seen so far doesn't come close to reaching an impeachable offense or other illegal action by Trump. This is about Comey's interpretations and feelings about Trump and his words. It is squarely in the category of a political issue that can be dealt with at the next election cycle.

----
The loyalty thing...big deal. This has to be seen against the backdrop of incredible leaking going on. What president doesn't want to know that his FBI chief is loyal and not part of the leaking problem (which, it turns out, Comey was).

----
The comment about taking it easy on Flynn (or whatever the exact language was)...stupid, stupid thing for a president to say. I remind all of you we have a president that's not a politician. That means you are going to get 'irregular' actions which don't necessarily have the same meaning or purpose if done by a career politician.

wifeisafurd;842845245 said:

---

This is why for this to have any legs, Dems must win the House. No one is getting prosecuting the next 4 years unless Mueller says otherwise.

---

Yes, as I said in another post, he will get impeached if the Democrats win the House, AND there is political will in the country to do so, AND the Democrats think it is in their best interest to do so. Practically speaking the President can be impeached for being massively disliked as long as congress has something to hang their hats on. It is a political question. The Republicans had something to hang their hats on with Clinton but badly misjudged the political will. Comey's testimony is enough to hang their hats on if there is the political will to impeach. That would be a move fraught with danger, as it should be.

The other part of midterms that is relevant is that if the Democrats win handily and the Republicans think they are looking at a crushing defeat in 2020, and the Dems make a move, the Republicans would have a strategic decision to make - protect him and hope the public sees it as an overreach by the Dems, or abandon him, claim he was never a Republican anyway, and hope Pence could show how a real Republican would govern

Latest poll says 40% don't believe Trump will finish his term. I don't agree (I think it is possible but not likely), but that is pretty chilling.

tequila4kapp;842845256 said:

---

I'm admittedly not following this closely but what I've seen so far doesn't come close to reaching an impeachable offense of other illegal action by Trump. This is about Comey's interpretations and feelings about Trump and his words. It is squarely in the category of a political issue that can be dealt with at the next election cycle.

----
The loyalty thing...big deal. This has to be seen against the backdrop of incredible leaking going on. What president doesn't want to know that his FBI chief is loyal and not part of the leaking problem (which, it turns out, Comey was).

----
The comment about taking it easy on Flynn (or whatever the exact language was)...stupid, stupid thing for a president to say. I remind all of you we have a president that's not a politician. That means you are going to get 'irregular' actions which don't necessarily have the same meaning or purpose if done by a career politician.

---

You dizzy? Sit down for a bit. It will pass.

GB54;842845253 said:

---

Maybe, the Republican impeaching of Clinton was not necessarily a shrewd political move-sometimes it's better to let a President wallow in scandals-real or imagined-than concoct a show trial.

---

1. I think the public mood is different this time, especially for the Democratic base. In the 90s the general public wasn't all that interested in impeachment. Much more so now.

2. The root issue (possible collusion by the Trump campaign with a hostile foreign power) is much more powerful than it was with Clinton (affair with an intern). I don't think it would come off as a "show" trial, unless the Dems bungled the messaging badly.

What the Hell is John McCain talking about? He is not making sense.

tequila4kapp;842845256 said:

---

I'm admittedly not following this closely but what I've seen so far doesn't come close to reaching an impeachable offense of other illegal action by Trump. This is about Comey's interpretations and feelings about Trump and his words.

---

No, it's about Trump's action in firing Comey (the whole reason he is testifying today about why he thinks it happened). Without that there is no case for obstruction of justice. With it there is, though it may not be pursued for political reasons.

BearNIt;842845260 said:

---

What the Hell is John McCain talking about? He is not making sense.

---

You get a sense of what he is trying to ask, but he sure looked like he is losing it.

sycasey;842845261 said:

---

No, it's about Trump's action in firing Comey (the whole reason he is testifying today about why he thinks it happened). Without that there is no case for obstruction of justice. With it there is, though it may not be pursued for political reasons.

---

The investigation continued unobstructed with or without Comey. Comey's thoughts on why he was fired are irrelevant.

tequila4kapp;842845268 said:

---

The investigation continued unobstructed with or without Comey. Comey's thoughts on why he was fired are irrelevant.

---

Nope. The crime involves the ATTEMPT to obstruct justice.

tequila4kapp;842845268 said:

---

The investigation continued unobstructed with or without Comey. Comey's thoughts on why he was fired are irrelevant.

---

Not the point. The question is whether or not Trump was TRYING to stop the investigating by firing Comey.

sycasey;842845274 said:

---

Not the point. The question is whether or not Trump was TRYING to stop the investigating by firing Comey.

---

And as others have noted, it is much more a political question than a legal one. There will be no indictment of the President. Whether there is an impeachment is entirely dependent on the outcome of the 2018 mid terms. This is just fodder for that campaign. Barring a stunning new revelation, nothing will happen quickly.

sycasey;842845274 said:

---

Not the point. The question is whether or not Trump was TRYING to stop the investigating by firing Comey.

---

It IS the point. Comey's belief about Trump's intent is irrelevant if the underlying offense didn't happen. Also, it is just Comey's opinion. Clearly, Trump is going to say his intent was something else, you know, like Comey was incompetent and even Democrats said he should be fired. In which case it is juicy stuff that gets some people all riled up but ultimately nothing.

BearNIt;842845260 said:

---

What the Hell is John McCain talking about? He is not making sense.

---

Was he trying to imply that Hillary was working with the Russians? That was really weird.

tequila4kapp;842845279 said:

---

It IS the point. Comey's belief about Trump's intent is irrelevant if the underlying offense didn't happen. Also, it is just Comey's opinion. Clearly, Trump is going to say his intent was something else, you know, like Comey was incompetent and even Democrats said he should be fired. In which case it is juicy stuff that gets some people all riled up but ultimately nothing.

---

Of course it's his opinion. If someone is going to build a case for obstruction, then the FBI Director's documented opinions (at the time of the original conversations, not after being fired) are valid as evidence. Absolute proof? Of course not. But they are meaningful, not "nothing."

I mean, what the hell are you even saying here? Testimony in legal cases involves a lot of opinion. Sometimes it conflicts with someone else's testimony. That doesn't make it meaningless.

BearNIt;842845260 said:

---

What the Hell is John McCain talking about? He is not making sense.

---

tequila4kapp;842845279 said:

---

It IS the point. Comey's belief about Trump's intent is irrelevant if the underlying offense didn't happen. Also, it is just Comey's opinion. Clearly, Trump is going to say his intent was something else, you know, like Comey was incompetent and even Democrats said he should be fired. In which case it is juicy stuff that gets some people all riled up but ultimately nothing.

---

1. Comey's belief is not irrelevant. He is a witness to the action. Just like Trump. The testimony of both is relevant to determine whether the underlying offense happened. The fact that the investigation was not stopped does not mean the attempt was not made. Just like in a legal case, witnesses present contradictory testimony and the trier of fact has to determine what to believe. If it amounts to a he said-he said situation, credibility of the witnesses could be key. Few dispute that Comey has a better reputation for telling the truth than Trump. Whether that leads to a conclusion by people that have the power to impeach is the question.

2. Is it clear that Trump is going to say his intent was something else? He seems to refuse to do such things no matter what his lawyers tell him. And if he does, it is relevant that he already said he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired him. He has tweeted several times that the investigation is a sham. He has already made it pretty clear publicly that he believes the investigation should stop.

3. What is relevant is what members of congress think about the fact pattern. They decide.

4. Of course nothing is going to happen soon. The party in power doesn't impeach their guy unless they virtually have to. The Republicans supported Nixon until virtually the end. Neither party will impeach until it is politically expedient to do so.

tequila4kapp;842845279 said:

---

It IS the point. Comey's belief about Trump's intent is irrelevant if the underlying offense didn't happen. Also, it is just Comey's opinion. Clearly, Trump is going to say his intent was something else, you know, like Comey was incompetent and even Democrats said he should be fired. In which case it is juicy stuff that gets some people all riled up but ultimately nothing.

---

Trump himself said he fired Comey because of "this Russia thing"

sycasey;842845259 said:

---

1. I think the public mood is different this time, especially for the Democratic base. In the 90s the general public wasn't all that interested in impeachment. Much more so now.

2. The root issue (possible collusion by the Trump campaign with a hostile foreign power) is much more powerful than it was with Clinton (affair with an intern). I don't think it would come off as a "show" trial, unless the Dems bungled the messaging badly.

---

Sure if it's collusion and that's what Mueller says and there is a clear obstruction thread, but not if it amounts to to revelations to date.

Go!Bears;842845275 said:

---

And as others have noted, it is much more a political question than a legal one. There will be no indictment of the President. Whether there is an impeachment is entirely dependent on the outcome of the 2018 mid terms. This is just fodder for that campaign. Barring a stunning new revelation, nothing will happen quickly.

---

By the way, some seem to be saying that there will be no indictment of the President implying that means the facts don't support it. There will be no indictment because there can be no indictment of the President. The only way to indict a sitting President is through the impeachment process.

GB54;842845294 said:

---

Sure if it's collusion and that's what Mueller says and there is a clear obstruction thread, but not if it amounts to to revelations to date.

---

Sure. I'm imagining a year and a half down the line, after the midterms -- soonest chance the Democrats would have any chance to begin impeachment proceedings.

Is it illegal to lie to another person for whatever fanciful reason one might have so long as you aren't testifying under oath? Is illegal to vote for someone knowing that they are a liar?

sycasey;842845284 said:

---

Of course it's his opinion. If someone is going to build a case for obstruction, then the FBI Director's documented opinions (at the time of the original conversations, not after being fired) are valid as evidence. Absolute proof? Of course not. But they are meaningful, not "nothing."

I mean, what the hell are you even saying here? Testimony in legal cases involves a lot of opinion. Sometimes it conflicts with someone else's testimony. That doesn't make it meaningless.

---

I am saying:
1. Because the investigation was not impeded or halted there cannot be obstruction of justice. [this is obviously an opinion that may be factually wrong; lawyers on the board feel free to chime in here]
2. I am not aware of a crime called "attempted obstruction of justice" but if such crime exists, Comey's opinion could matter.
3. To the extent Comey's opinion might matter it is superceded by the explanation of the person who actually said the words (minus some overt indisputable evidence supporting Comey's opinion, which does not exist).

It is also worth remembering that - IIRRC - if Comey believed anyone was obstructing justice he had a legal obligation to report it. He did not report it. He is only now coming forward with his opinions about Trump's actions (and inviting others to make that conclusion) now that he's been fired.

tequila4kapp;842845303 said:

---

I am saying:
1. Because the investigation was not impeded or halted there cannot be obstruction of justice. [this is obviously an opinion that may be factually wrong; lawyers on the board feel free to chime in here]
2. I am not aware of a crime called "attempted obstruction of justice" but if such crime exists, Comey's opinion could matter.
3. To the extent Comey's opinion might matter it is superceded by the explanation of the person who actually said the words (minus some overt indisputable evidence supporting Comey's opinion, which does not exist).

---

If Comey did stop an ongoing investigation or prevent one from occurring anyway (which of course he did not), he himself could have been obstructing justice. Thus he will never impugn the President to the degree that the left wants him too.

sycasey;842845298 said:

---

Sure. I'm imagining a year and a half down the line, after the midterms -- soonest chance the Democrats would have any chance to begin impeachment proceedings.

---

If Dems win the House they may prefer to investigate for 2 years, slowly exposing everybody close to Trump (all the Russian financial entanglements and meetings that have been lied about) and the Republicans that have been covering for him (all the non-investigations and gibberish putting party over country). People in this administration have lied under oath and lied on federal forms about meeting with Russians. There is good reason for massive investigations that would certainly take a long time if done correctly. Then run against an incredibly weakened GOP in 2020.

It is very plausible that this could do to the Republican Party what the Civil War did to the Democratic Party in the 50 years following the Civil War. It would be fitting. At a minimum, the Russians attacked our election and the Republicans have no interest in doing anything about it because it benefited them. Every voter should ask themselves, 1) why are Republicans ok with Russia attacking our election and 2) why does Russian prefer Republican governance over Democratic governance.

tequila4kapp;842845303 said:

---

I am saying:
1. Because the investigation was not impeded or halted there cannot be obstruction of justice. [this is obviously an opinion that may be factually wrong; lawyers on the board feel free to chime in here]
2. I am not aware of a crime called "attempted obstruction of justice" but if such crime exists, Comey's opinion could matter.
3. To the extent Comey's opinion might matter it is superceded by the explanation of the person who actually said the words (minus some overt indisputable evidence supporting Comey's opinion, which does not exist).

---

I think the lawyers have already chimed in (OaktownBear being one) and said the attempt is what matters.

Also, impeachment is a political process more than a strictly legal one. As such, Democrats already have enough to bring impeachment if they regain control over Congress (just winning the House would be enough to begin proceedings, though of course the Senate would have to vote on actual removal from office as well). Question now is over whether or not that happens.