ABC: Comey will stop short of saying Trump obstructed justice

[Nyvin]

This article seems to miss the point:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does it matter if Comey himself thinks that rises to the level of obstructing justice?  Comey's not in a position of authority anymore.  If Comey testifies that Trump did in fact say that to him, then it's up to the legal system (or Congress, if they want to impeach Trump) to decide if they believe him or not, and if they do, if they consider that to be "obstructing justice" or not.  It's not up to Comey.

The quote is not obstruction of justice. It's inappropriate, but not obstruction. A hope is not an order.

Actually, arguably, coupled with the DNI/CIA requests, that "hope" rises to become much more than just a hope. It sounds more concerted as an effort to obstruct justice with that context, no?

I'd have to see the actual text.  But saying hope more than once is still not obstruction. Comey by the way when Trump said that, should have said "I have to go where the facts lead me," to give the message that what Trump would not deflect him. It will be interesting to find out what Comey said in reply, if anything.

Thankfully there's a plethora of other evidence to go on to suggest a different charge of obstruction, and not just what he said to Comey...which btw - what Trump "said" to Comey was never really the primary concern to begin with, it just suggestion other nefarious activity.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I think his testimony to the motivation is going to be critical, though. Sure, Trump said it, but did he mean it? Did he understand the implications? Was he ignorant?

If the legal defence of the most powerful man in the world is "he's too stupid to understand what he was saying"... jfc

[Mr. Morden]

I think his testimony to the motivation is going to be critical, though. Sure, Trump said it, but did he mean it? Did he understand the implications? Was he ignorant?

If the legal defence of the most powerful man in the world is "he's too stupid to understand what he was saying"... jfc

Jonathan Chait has a good column on this very subject:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/trump-firing-comey-biggest-political-crisis-since-watergate.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Inmate Trump]

I agree with Trump on that 100%.

Surprise, surprise!

Sure, Trump said it, but did he mean it? Did he understand the implications? Was he ignorant?

So ignorance of the law excuses someone from breaking it? And regardless of that, you know you're pretty much admitting that he's an idiot, right? Everyone who has any sense at all (used to be a quality people looked for in their elected officials) knows exactly what it means to obstruct justice.

[Badger]

This article seems to miss the point:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does it matter if Comey himself thinks that rises to the level of obstructing justice?  Comey's not in a position of authority anymore.  If Comey testifies that Trump did in fact say that to him, then it's up to the legal system (or Congress, if they want to impeach Trump) to decide if they believe him or not, and if they do, if they consider that to be "obstructing justice" or not.  It's not up to Comey.

The quote is not obstruction of justice. It's inappropriate, but not obstruction. A hope is not an order.

Coming from one's boss in this context, it's hard to construe it as anything but. It's not like he followed up with saying "Consider X, Y, and Z indicating Flynn did nothing wrong". This is very difficult to interpret as anything other than a heavy-handed lean on Comey by Trump to stop the investigation into his administration's/campaigns behind the scenes dealing with the Russian government.

After Trump thereafter fired Comey for refusing to back down, it's damn near impossible for anyone other than cultists to interpret this otherwise.

[Badger]

This hearing wasn't going to break any new ground ever folks.

Comey hasn't publicly said that Trump asked him to drop the Flynn investigation.  It's been reported that he's saying that behind closed doors and that he wrote a memo saying so, but all we have to go on right now are leaks.  So if Comey testifies that Trump said that, it would be the first time we've heard that accusation coming out of Comey's mouth.

Yeah it will be interesting if there's some additional context to it if Comey mentions it.  Was it - "Dude, if there's no evidence by now, drop it."  or  simply "Consider ending the investigation, period."  Either way is bad, but one is worse.

The only issue here is whether people will care or not. I'm not completely in agreement with Grumps on the lack of impact, but I think he's got a good point that Comey's refusal to outright state "The President sought to obstruct me from doing my job" will be enough for Trump and his allies to declare victory, nothing to see here, and help rally the base a bit. I won't be shocked if Trump's numbers actually slightly rise after Comey's testimony.

Whether that holds in the following months all depends on whether the Senate follows this up or buries it.

[Torie]

This article seems to miss the point:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does it matter if Comey himself thinks that rises to the level of obstructing justice?  Comey's not in a position of authority anymore.  If Comey testifies that Trump did in fact say that to him, then it's up to the legal system (or Congress, if they want to impeach Trump) to decide if they believe him or not, and if they do, if they consider that to be "obstructing justice" or not.  It's not up to Comey.

The quote is not obstruction of justice. It's inappropriate, but not obstruction. A hope is not an order.

Coming from one's boss in this context, it's hard to construe it as anything but. It's not like he followed up with saying "Consider X, Y, and Z indicating Flynn did nothing wrong". This is very difficult to interpret as anything other than a heavy-handed lean on Comey by Trump to stop the investigation into his administration's/campaigns behind the scenes dealing with the Russian government.

After Trump thereafter fired Comey for refusing to back down, it's damn near impossible for anyone other than cultists to interpret this otherwise.

I understand what you are saying, in connecting the dots, and the more dots there are, the more serious it gets. Asking the intelligence officer to "intervene" to me is a very big dot. In the end though, it will come down to whether Trump did something terribly wrong which is revealed by the investigation. Then we have obstruction of justice. If there isn't that much there but inappropriate conduct that really isn't illegal, then while we have a horrible POTUS, I don't see it ending in his removal. This story is moving rather rapidly. I may change my mind tomorrow.

[Nyvin]

It's quite remarkable really, how many free passes some people are willing to give Trump due to him being a white male.   Even when it's so blatantly obvious that there's wrong doing they want to give every possible opportunity to scapegoat away all his misdeeds. 

[SoLongAtlas]

I didn't see this posted here yet so here it is:

3 senior FBI officials can vouch for Comey’s story about Trump
Sources: McCabe, Rybicki, and Baker could corroborate the ex-director’s claims that the president asked him to back off investigating Michael Flynn.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/7/15751336/fbi-trump-russia-comey-trump-flynn

Looking more and more like obstruction to me. Also this is relevant:

Joy Reid‏Verified account @JoyAnnReid  12h12 hours ago
More
 Republican source tells me elected GOPers edging toward "every man for himself" re Trump. Many are waiting to see how #ComeyDay goes.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's quite remarkable really, how many free passes some people are willing to give Trump due to him being a white male.   Even when it's so blatantly obvious that there's wrong doing they want to give every possible opportunity to scapegoat away all his misdeeds. 

It's not that he's a white male; it's that he's a Republican President. 

[Badger]

This article seems to miss the point:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does it matter if Comey himself thinks that rises to the level of obstructing justice?  Comey's not in a position of authority anymore.  If Comey testifies that Trump did in fact say that to him, then it's up to the legal system (or Congress, if they want to impeach Trump) to decide if they believe him or not, and if they do, if they consider that to be "obstructing justice" or not.  It's not up to Comey.

The quote is not obstruction of justice. It's inappropriate, but not obstruction. A hope is not an order.

Coming from one's boss in this context, it's hard to construe it as anything but. It's not like he followed up with saying "Consider X, Y, and Z indicating Flynn did nothing wrong". This is very difficult to interpret as anything other than a heavy-handed lean on Comey by Trump to stop the investigation into his administration's/campaigns behind the scenes dealing with the Russian government.

After Trump thereafter fired Comey for refusing to back down, it's damn near impossible for anyone other than cultists to interpret this otherwise.

I understand what you are saying, in connecting the dots, and the more dots there are, the more serious it gets. Asking the intelligence officer to "intervene" to me is a very big dot. In the end though, it will come down to whether Trump did something terribly wrong which is revealed by the investigation. Then we have obstruction of justice. If there isn't that much there but inappropriate conduct that really isn't illegal, then while we have a horrible POTUS, I don't see it ending in his removal. This story is moving rather rapidly. I may change my mind tomorrow.

Bona fide convicted criminal activity is not a prerequisite for impeachment. Full-scale abusive office can suffice, and this at bare minimum qualifies.

[pbrower2a]

This article seems to miss the point:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does it matter if Comey himself thinks that rises to the level of obstructing justice?  Comey's not in a position of authority anymore.  If Comey testifies that Trump did in fact say that to him, then it's up to the legal system (or Congress, if they want to impeach Trump) to decide if they believe him or not, and if they do, if they consider that to be "obstructing justice" or not.  It's not up to Comey.

The quote is not obstruction of justice. It's inappropriate, but not obstruction. A hope is not an order.

Coming from one's boss in this context, it's hard to construe it as anything but. It's not like he followed up with saying "Consider X, Y, and Z indicating Flynn did nothing wrong". This is very difficult to interpret as anything other than a heavy-handed lean on Comey by Trump to stop the investigation into his administration's/campaigns behind the scenes dealing with the Russian government.

After Trump thereafter fired Comey for refusing to back down, it's damn near impossible for anyone other than cultists to interpret this otherwise.

I understand what you are saying, in connecting the dots, and the more dots there are, the more serious it gets. Asking the intelligence officer to "intervene" to me is a very big dot. In the end though, it will come down to whether Trump did something terribly wrong which is revealed by the investigation. Then we have obstruction of justice. If there isn't that much there but inappropriate conduct that really isn't illegal, then while we have a horrible POTUS, I don't see it ending in his removal. This story is moving rather rapidly. I may change my mind tomorrow.

Bona fide convicted criminal activity is not a prerequisite for impeachment. Full-scale abusive office can suffice, and this at bare minimum qualifies.

Comey seems to have exposed abuse of power in the effort to make the FBI director loyal to the Person as President at the expense of the Constitution. Attempting to take powers denied the President implies that the president is acting as a dictator.