info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Ask a lawyer: is it obstruction?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Alan Baker
Jun 8, 2017, 3:38:47 PM6/8/17
to
'I asked Just Security‘s Alex Whiting, who was a federal prosecutor
before his career as a Harvard Law professor, and Duke University law
professor Samuel Buell for their two cents.
Here’s Whiting’s take:
"I think Comey’s testimony, both written and oral, strengthened the case
that Trump’s February 14 request to drop the Flynn investigation
constituted obstruction. Trump had demanded Comey’s loyalty at the
January dinner, and then at the White House he cleared the room of all
other senior officials before making his request. Comey understood the
request to be a directive or order and was shocked and disturbed by it,
as were other senior FBI officials. Whether it’s a case that a
prosecutor would choose to charge, and whether it warrants impeachment,
are separate questions that can be debated. But Comey’s testimony made
out a prima facie case of obstruction of justice.
Here’s what Buell had to say:
The hearing greatly sharpened the focus of this matter onto whether
President Trump attempted to obstruct justice when he isolated FBI
Director Comey after a White House meeting and pressured him to drop an
active criminal investigation for no proper purpose. All the other
events lend emphasis, meaning, and context to that event. But that
event is the core and ultimate issue.
Based on Comey’s testimony, we know to a virtual certainty that the
President is now under investigation for obstruction of justice.
That the President, through his attorney, is flatly denying the
occurrence of the key conversation—in the face of clear testimony from
one of the most credible witnesses one could ever come across—underlines
the seriousness of this. This is reminiscent of “I never had sex with
that woman….”
The obstruction investigation has only begun and no one should expect a
final conclusion from Special Counsel Mueller for quite some time. But
it is almost certain that any conclusion of that investigation will
include, at the least, a statement from the Special Counsel to the
Justice Department about whether the President committed a federal
crime. I don’t see how this isn’t obstruction of justice unless there
is some “the President can do it if it involves his own employees”
exception—which sounds dangerously close to placing the President not
just in charge but entirely above the law."'
<https://www.justsecurity.org/41905/lawyer-obstruction/>
So that's a former federal prosecutor and law professor and another law
professor; just to refresh your rather limited memories.
<http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10953/Whiting>
<https://law.duke.edu/fac/buell/>
before his career as a Harvard Law professor, and Duke University law
professor Samuel Buell for their two cents.
Here’s Whiting’s take:
"I think Comey’s testimony, both written and oral, strengthened the case
that Trump’s February 14 request to drop the Flynn investigation
constituted obstruction. Trump had demanded Comey’s loyalty at the
January dinner, and then at the White House he cleared the room of all
other senior officials before making his request. Comey understood the
request to be a directive or order and was shocked and disturbed by it,
as were other senior FBI officials. Whether it’s a case that a
prosecutor would choose to charge, and whether it warrants impeachment,
are separate questions that can be debated. But Comey’s testimony made
out a prima facie case of obstruction of justice.
Here’s what Buell had to say:
The hearing greatly sharpened the focus of this matter onto whether
President Trump attempted to obstruct justice when he isolated FBI
Director Comey after a White House meeting and pressured him to drop an
active criminal investigation for no proper purpose. All the other
events lend emphasis, meaning, and context to that event. But that
event is the core and ultimate issue.
Based on Comey’s testimony, we know to a virtual certainty that the
President is now under investigation for obstruction of justice.
That the President, through his attorney, is flatly denying the
occurrence of the key conversation—in the face of clear testimony from
one of the most credible witnesses one could ever come across—underlines
the seriousness of this. This is reminiscent of “I never had sex with
that woman….”
The obstruction investigation has only begun and no one should expect a
final conclusion from Special Counsel Mueller for quite some time. But
it is almost certain that any conclusion of that investigation will
include, at the least, a statement from the Special Counsel to the
Justice Department about whether the President committed a federal
crime. I don’t see how this isn’t obstruction of justice unless there
is some “the President can do it if it involves his own employees”
exception—which sounds dangerously close to placing the President not
just in charge but entirely above the law."'
<https://www.justsecurity.org/41905/lawyer-obstruction/>
So that's a former federal prosecutor and law professor and another law
professor; just to refresh your rather limited memories.
<http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10953/Whiting>
<https://law.duke.edu/fac/buell/>
Alan Baker
Jun 8, 2017, 3:50:14 PM6/8/17
to
On 2017-06-08 12:45 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> 'I asked Just Security?s Alex Whiting, who was a federal prosecutor
>>
>>
>> <http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10953/Whiting>
>> <https://law.duke.edu/fac/buell/>
>>
>
> Why didn't you ask them about destroying emails under subpoena or
> colluding with the Atty General to lie about an investigation?
>
Why don't you and get back to us.
Everything is out there on the web, but remember:
Both the link and the text have to be provided.
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> 'I asked Just Security?s Alex Whiting, who was a federal prosecutor
>> before his career as a Harvard Law professor, and Duke University law
>> professor Samuel Buell for their two cents.
>>
>> <https://www.justsecurity.org/41905/lawyer-obstruction/>
>> professor Samuel Buell for their two cents.
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10953/Whiting>
>> <https://law.duke.edu/fac/buell/>
>>
>
> Why didn't you ask them about destroying emails under subpoena or
> colluding with the Atty General to lie about an investigation?
>
Why don't you and get back to us.
Everything is out there on the web, but remember:
Both the link and the text have to be provided.
MNMikeW
Jun 8, 2017, 4:52:33 PM6/8/17
to
Remember, he's only here to be an asshole.
Alan Baker
Jun 8, 2017, 5:25:18 PM6/8/17
to
> I guess making up rules is your way of not responding.
>
You've tried to deflect the conversation again...
>
...I decline to play your silly game.
Alan Baker
Jun 8, 2017, 5:32:12 PM6/8/17
to
Dene
Jun 8, 2017, 6:19:32 PM6/8/17
to
- show quoted text -
> I guess making up rules is your way of not responding.
Remember, he's only here to be an asshole.
The RAT has that M.O. down to a science.
Remember, he's only here to be an asshole.
Alan Baker
Jun 8, 2017, 6:24:31 PM6/8/17
to
toms...@gmail.com
Jun 8, 2017, 11:01:55 PM6/8/17
to
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/08/dershowitz-comey-confirms-that-im-right-and-all-democratic-commentators-are-wrong.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/08/dershowitz_grades_toobins_case_for_obstruction_c-minus.html
0 new messages