ABC: Comey will stop short of saying Trump obstructed justice

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fight for Trump]

"Extremely careless"

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So he's not going to take an explicit stance on the matter. Seems like the Clinton email thing has affected his thinking.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This guy is a nutjob. I agree with Trump on that 100%. I won't believe anything he says until he literally says it before the Senate on Thursday.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.

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? He's basically going to get off the obstruction charges just like Hillary Clinton (who did obstruct justice) was basically let go.

[Holmes]

It's the right thing to do. He's not in a position of accusing anyone of crimes anymore. What's important is his account of the events that led to his firing.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

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? He's basically going to get off the obstruction charges just like Hillary Clinton (who did obstruct justice) was basically let go.

I'll repeat my recent post in a different thread,

Just laying the groundwork for the post-impeachment/resignation trial. "Trump has less mind than a rotten coconut! He can't possibly be guilty!"

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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

[GeorgiaModerate]

Just laying the groundwork for the post-impeachment/resignation trial. "Trump has less mind than a rotten coconut! He can't possibly be guilty!"

In that vein...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

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

[Mr. Morden]

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.

[Dr. Arch]

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

This guy can't be serious...

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

[Middle-aged Europe]

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

So, you're saying that Trump may be not guilty because he's mentally incompetent and therefore incapable of realizing that he comitted a crime? If that's the case, wouldn't this be sufficient reason to invoke the 25th amendment and declare him unfit to serve as president?

[The_Doctor]

Comey's doing the right thing here. I respectfully disagree with Grumps and others who think this is a nothingburger.

Consider: I think that this hearing will definitely advance and color the investigation and add meat to the ongoing drama. As Mr. Morden points out, Comey saying these things directly will become a part of the public record. That in itself is a big deal. We're not relying on anonymous sources or anything; we have Comey's direct testimony.

Comey is not going for the big takeout here. That's not his job. That's the job of Congress and Bob Mueller to make that determination in that public report. He's a witness at this point, not a principal. He's adding context and testifying. I'm echoing Mr. Morden here but still.

Anyone who doesn't think this won't be deadly should remember that in history, testimony has often proven explosive in what they revealed without actual verdicts being uttered by the witnesses. Alexander P. Butterfield's testimony that there were tapes proved the smoking gun, even though Buttersfield never said Nixon was guilty or innocent.

The testimony of a former FBI Director saying these things is still extremely powerful. It's in fact unprecedented for a former FBI Director to make that charge against a sitting President through testifying that certain likely illegal acts did happen.

The testimony to the motivation is most likely Comey going to testify this did happen, x and y did happen. He's not going to say "The President committed obstruction of justice." But there will likely be enough evidence to infer that.  

[Nyvin]

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

So, you're saying that Trump may be not guilty because he's mentally incompetent and therefore incapable of realizing that he comitted a crime? If that's the case, wouldn't this be sufficient reason to invoke the 25th amendment and declare him unfit to serve as president?

Lmfao...Sanchez is hilarious sometimes!

[Adam Griffin]

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

So, you're saying that Trump may be not guilty because he's mentally incompetent and therefore incapable of realizing that he comitted a crime? If that's the case, wouldn't this be sufficient reason to invoke the 25th amendment and declare him unfit to serve as president?

I mean, in all fairness to Sanchez's JAQing off, DoJ does look at intent and weighs that heavily when considering whether or not to pursue charges. It's not uncommon for them to pass on indictments and the like for those who have unknowingly or unintentionally committed crimes. Intent is an important element in securing conviction, and it's why DoJ has like a 99% conviction rate.

However, that's the standard for your average federal criminals. For the President of the United States, I would imagine the bar is going to be a bit higher, including but not limited to the fact that POTUS should very well know better by virtue of being in the position.

[Mr. Morden]

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

So, you're saying that Trump may be not guilty because he's mentally incompetent and therefore incapable of realizing that he comitted a crime? If that's the case, wouldn't this be sufficient reason to invoke the 25th amendment and declare him unfit to serve as president?

I mean, in all fairness to Sanchez's JAQing off, DoJ does look at intent and weighs that heavily when considering whether or not to pursue charges. It's not uncommon for them to pass on indictments and the like for those who have unknowingly or unintentionally committed crimes. Intent is an important element in securing conviction, and it's why DoJ has like a 99% conviction rate.

However, that's the standard for your average federal criminals. For the President of the United States, I would imagine the bar is going to be a bit higher, including but not limited to the fact that POTUS should very well know better by virtue of being in the position.

Wait, to be clear here, *can* they actually charge him with anything while he's in office as POTUS?  I thought that the POTUS can't actually be charged until he's out of office, but maybe I have that wrong?  What would Mueller actually do if he decided that Trump himself should be charged with something?

[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.

[Adam Griffin]

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

So, you're saying that Trump may be not guilty because he's mentally incompetent and therefore incapable of realizing that he comitted a crime? If that's the case, wouldn't this be sufficient reason to invoke the 25th amendment and declare him unfit to serve as president?

I mean, in all fairness to Sanchez's JAQing off, DoJ does look at intent and weighs that heavily when considering whether or not to pursue charges. It's not uncommon for them to pass on indictments and the like for those who have unknowingly or unintentionally committed crimes. Intent is an important element in securing conviction, and it's why DoJ has like a 99% conviction rate.

However, that's the standard for your average federal criminals. For the President of the United States, I would imagine the bar is going to be a bit higher, including but not limited to the fact that POTUS should very well know better by virtue of being in the position.

Wait, to be clear here, *can* they actually charge him with anything while he's in office as POTUS?  I thought that the POTUS can't actually be charged until he's out of office, but maybe I have that wrong?  What would Mueller actually do if he decided that Trump himself should be charged with something?

Precedent/the views of previous AG's offices evaluating doing so suggests "no", but it has not been tested.

[The_Doctor]

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?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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

So, you're saying that Trump may be not guilty because he's mentally incompetent and therefore incapable of realizing that he comitted a crime? If that's the case, wouldn't this be sufficient reason to invoke the 25th amendment and declare him unfit to serve as president?

I mean, in all fairness to Sanchez's JAQing off, DoJ does look at intent and weighs that heavily when considering whether or not to pursue charges. It's not uncommon for them to pass on indictments and the like for those who have unknowingly or unintentionally committed crimes. Intent is an important element in securing conviction, and it's why DoJ has like a 99% conviction rate.

However, that's the standard for your average federal criminals. For the President of the United States, I would imagine the bar is going to be a bit higher, including but not limited to the fact that POTUS should very well know better by virtue of being in the position.

Thank you for articulating perfectly what I was too stoned articulate properly

[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.

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 said would not deflect him. It will be interesting to find out what Comey said in reply, if anything.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

The obstruction would be when Trump fired him after he didn't fulfill Trump's "hope".