| 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>
--
Michael Press