Could it be possible that we could see James Comey brought to justice?
Comey thought that he was going to “get” Trump, but he might be the one that ends up behind bars instead. Here is the latest from our friends at Zero Hedge…
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz made a stunning admission during Monday Congressional Testimony that former FBI Director James Comey is under a separate and ongoing investigation over mishandling of classified information – when asked by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) about it…
Grassley: “Comey said he did not expect a report on his handling of classified information because, “That’s frivolous.” I don’t happen to think that it is frivolous. Question number one, Mr. Horowitz, are you investigating the handling of his memo and does that include the classification issues, and should Mr. Comey expect a report when it’s complete?”
Horowitz: “We received a referral on that from the FBI,” We are handling that referral and we will issue a report when the matter is complete, consistent with the law and rules that are–a report that’s consistent and takes those into account.”
So do you believe that James Comey should go to prison?
Please tell us what you think by posting a comment below this article…
Many were anticipating that #ComeyDay would be the most monumental congressional hearing in decades, but the truth is that it turned out to be quite a dud. During two and a half hours of testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI Director James Comey didn’t tell us anything that we don’t already know. Of course liberal news outlets such as CNN are breathlessly proclaiming that we are now “in Nixon territory”, but that isn’t accurate at all. There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump committed any crime, and there is absolutely nothing that warrants impeachment.
And I am far from alone in that assessment. For example, an analysis published by CNBC says that nothing in Comey’s testimony was “powerful enough to end the Trump presidency literally or figuratively”…
“Former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony Thursday will indeed have a big political impact in Washington. It will foster more partisan bitterness and more bad feelings about our political process and news media. But none of his testimony rises to the level of anything legally powerful enough to end the Trump presidency literally or figuratively.
The bottom line is that Comey spent a few hours Thursday telling the Senate committee that he felt uncomfortable and even stunned by President Trump’s behavior. And he peppered that narrative with numerous damaging statements about the president’s behavior and character, including basically calling him a liar”
When Comey accused Trump of being a liar, that certainly made a lot of headlines, but unless you are under oath it is not a crime to lie.
Perhaps we should make it a crime for our politicians to lie, because if we did we would clean out the toilet that Washington D.C. has become rather quickly. But as it stands, even if Trump is a low-down dirty liar as Comey is claiming, that would simply put Trump on the same level as most of the current members of Congress.
The much more important question is whether or not Trump committed obstruction of justice. Fortunately for Trump, there is a very clear answer to that question.
First of all, we must remember that Trump was Comey’s boss. As chief executive, Trump has constitutional power to direct the activities of his subordinates, and he is free to fire them whenever he chooses. So, as Alan Dershowitz just pointed out on CNN, Trump cannot be impeached for simply exercising his constitutional authority…
Renowned Harvard professor and legal mind Alan Dershowitz sparked quite a reaction during a CNN segment on Wednesday night after he proclaimed that former FBI director James Comey’s prepared testimony indicates that President Donald Trump didn’t commit any crimes.
Dershowitz argued that Trump “could have told Comey, ‘You are commanded, directed to drop the investigation against [Gen. Michael] Flynn,’” but noted that he didn’t do so, according to Comey’s prepared testimony that was published on Wednesday.
The famed attorney also said Trump could have pardoned Flynn as well, but also chose not to do so. In the end, he concluded that there appears to be no criminal activity on the part of the president, particularly when it comes to obstruction of justice claims.
Traditionally, the FBI has operated in a highly independent manner, but there is nothing in the law that gives the FBI independent status.
If Congress wants to pass a law to remove the FBI from being under the president’s authority they can certainly do that, but as it stands what Trump did was fully within the law.
But even if Trump didn’t have the authority, there would still be no obstruction of justice. The two most important federal statutes that cover obstruction of justice are 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505. In both cases, it would be exceedingly difficult for prosecutors to prove that Trump acted “corruptly” in this case. Not only that, there was no “proceeding” that Trump was trying to influence. For a more extended analysis, please see the article that I posted yesterday entitled “Even If Everything James Comey Is Claiming Is True, There Is Still No Evidence That Trump Is Guilty Of Any Crime”.
If Comey is being straight with us, and at this point his credibility is pretty much shot, but if he is being straight with us there is still nothing that is going to end Trump’s presidency.
What Trump did may have been “inappropriate”, but you don’t impeach a president for being “inappropriate”.
President Donald Trump’s private attorney, Marc Kasowitz, on Wednesday said his client felt “completely and totally vindicated” by James Comey’s prepared opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Comey’s remarks, released Wednesday in advance of Thursday’s Senate hearing, confirmed previous statements by Trump that Comey had told him three times that he was not personally being investigated amid the FBI’s wide-ranging inquiry into Russian meddling in the election and the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia.
Personally, I hope that this whole “scandal” will go away now. There never was anything to it in the first place, and the American people want a government that is going to focus on solving problems instead of focusing on investigations that were doomed to go absolutely nowhere from the start.
But even if this Comey angle doesn’t work out, the Democrats will just keep on trying. In fact, the Huffington Post is already starting to promote the theory that Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement is an impeachable offense.
In the end, the Democrats are never going to give up until they find something that they can use against Trump. What I am hearing is that they are going to make an all-out push to take back the House and the Senate in 2018, and if they can do that they plan to use their congressional majorities to get rid of Trump one way or another.
This is just another reason why the 2018 mid-term elections are going to be the most important mid-term elections in modern American history, because if the Democrats have their way Trump will never even make it to 2020.
Democrats are hoping that the testimony that former FBI Director James Comey will deliver on Thursday will be enough to take Donald Trump down for good. Comey released a written preview of his testimony on Wednesday, and it was obviously intended to draw even more attention to what is already being described as “the most highly-anticipated Congressional hearing in decades”. CNN is breathlessly declaring that “James Comey just went nuclear on Donald Trump”, and Texas Democratic Representative Al Green is already planning to draft articles of impeachment even though the testimony hasn’t even happened yet. Unfortunately for those that would like to see Trump go, even if every single thing that James Comey is claiming is true (and that is a very big “if”), there is still no evidence that Trump is guilty of any crime.
There are many other things that we could discuss, but the core of this case is going to come down to a conversation that Trump and Flynn had on February 14th…
Former FBI Director James Comey said President Donald Trump asked him to drop the agency’s investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,” Comey said Trump told him in an Oval Office meeting on Feb. 14.
Eisen compared the news revealed in Comey’s testimony to former President Richard Nixon’s secret recording of his phone calls in meetings at the White House when he was in office, which eventually played a role in his resignation.
“This moves us into the same realm as Nixon’s obstruction, maybe worse,” he continued. “This is the equivalent of the Nixon tapes. We are headed into very, very choppy waters.”
“There is a criminal investigation going on of one of the President’s top associations … he gets fired, he is under under investigation and the President brings in the FBI Director and says ‘please stop your investigation,'” said CNN’s senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
“If that isn’t obstruction of justice, I don’t know what is,” Toobin said.
I don’t know what law school Toobin attended, but he is clearly wrong on this point.
There are several federal statutes that could apply in this case, but the most important one is 18 U.S.C. § 1505. In order for obstruction of justice to be proven under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, there are a number of elements that must be clearly established. In this case, prosecutors would have an exceedingly difficult time proving that Trump acted “corruptly”, but the even bigger problem would be the fact that there was no “proceeding” taking place at the time.
This is what 18 U.S.C. § 1505 says…
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress–
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
And some of the greatest minds in the legal world agree with me that there is no obstruction of justice in this case. For example, consider what George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley recently had to say about this…
There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”
However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.
Then there is the question of corruptly influencing what? There is no indication of a grand jury proceeding at the time of the Valentine’s Day meeting between Trump and Comey. Obstruction cases generally are built around judicial proceedings — not Oval Office meetings.
And Alan Dershowitz is also convinced that there is no way to prove obstruction of justice in this case…
Finally, there is the allegation of obstruction of justice growing out of President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey and his alleged request to Comey to “let it go” with regard to his fired national security advisor Michael Flynn. None of this, in my view, rises to the level of criminal obstruction, because all of the president’s actions were within his constitutional and statutory authority. But even if it were a crime, it is unlikely that a sitting president could be indicted and prosecuted for what is alleged against Trump.
Turley and Dershowitz are both extremely liberal, but at least they are honest enough to give us a balanced assessment of what the law actually says on these matters.
If Comey is being accurate, Trump’s conversations with him may have been inappropriate, but no crimes were committed.
Of course that isn’t going to stop the Democrats from trying to impeach him. If this current angle fails, I am hearing that they are planning an all-out push to get rid of Trump if they are able to take back both the House and the Senate in 2018. Let us hope that does not happen, because it is extremely difficult to be an effective president with the threat of possible impeachment constantly hanging over you.
(Guest article by Daisy Luther) Do you remember that scene in the old Frankenstein movie when the villagers descended on the castle with burning stakes and pitchforks? The hounds were baying, people were shouting incoherently, and ignorant, fearful villagers watched the whole thing?
Listen in particular to the speech at the beginning of this. That’s about what the person leading the charge against James Comey is saying.
According to Harry Reid, a US Senator and one of the head honchos of the Democratic Party, James Comey “may” have broken the law by announcing that emails on devices associated with Hillary Clinton are under renewed investigation.
He’s referring to the Hatch Act, a law passed in 1939. It was officially called “An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities” and was adopted to prohibit executive branch federal employees (except the President and Vice President) from engaging in certain political activities, such as:
using their “official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election”;
soliciting, accepting, or receiving political campaign contributions from any person;
running “for election to a partisan political office”;
soliciting or discouraging participation in political activity of any person who either has an application for a grant, contract, or other status pending before the employing agency or is the subject of an ongoing audit, investigation, or enforcement action by the employing agency;
engaging in partisan political activity on official duty time; on federal property; while wearing a uniform or insignia identifying them as federal officials or employees; or while using a government vehicle. (source)
Will he be investigated for exposing a potential crime or will he be investigated for the timing of exposing a potential crime? It seems to me that keeping his mouth shut could also be in violation of the act – if he knew something and did not disclose it, wouldn’t that also affect the outcome of the election?
The other villagers are joining in.
Reid isn’t alone in the monster hunt. He’s joined by some other villagers with torches, pitchforks, and hounds too.
Take former Attorney General Eric Holder, for example. In a letter to the Clinton campaign, he wrote:
Many of us have worked with Director Comey; all of us respect him. But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed.
We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official—Republican or Democrat—has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new.” (source)
Perhaps Comey’s decision had something to do with the fact that, as Zero Hedge reported, the DoJ stifled an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation donating money to the political campaign of the wife of an FBI investigator. (I know, it’s sort of like my brother’s sister’s cousin’s husband’s uncle.”)
Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota Law School professor and the chief White House ethics lawyer for a couple of years during the Bush Administration, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times. He said he’s filing a complaint.
The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election.<
Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the F.B.I. presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential until after the election. The usual penalty for a violation is termination of federal employment.
That is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I spent much of my career working on government and lawyers’ ethics, including as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week. (Source)
The Mainstream Media (MSM) will not be kind to Comey.
Of course, when are they ever kind to people who oppose the Clinton Monarchy? The so-called journalists have armed up with self-righteousness and propagandist pitchforks.
Here are some related headlines:
In Releasing Email News, FBI Director Ignored Justice Department Advice, Tradition – Slate
FBI’s James Comey under fire after jolting presidential race – MSNBC
Harry Reid: FBI Director James Comey might have broken federal law – Washington Times
Clinton Allies Target Comey as Probe Scrambles Campaign – Bloomberg
Basically Everybody Thinks James Comey Has F***ed Up – Mother Jones
A leaked memo to FBI employees probably gives the best picture of Comey’s mindset when he made the decision to put himself in the line of fire.
In a memo explaining his decision to FBI employees soon after he sent his letter to Congress, Comey said he felt “an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed.” He admitted that he broke with custom in alerting lawmakers that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was being reopened because of its political sensitivity.
He further explained to FBI employees that “Of course we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.”
…“At the same time, however, given that we do not know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression,” Comey’s letter continued. “In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter, and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.” (source)
He is in a lose-lose situation, and I’m sure he knew this. It seems to me that knowing he’s going to be dead the ex-director of the FBI sooner rather than later, he has done what he believes is the right thing.
Personally, I can’t fault Comey for doing what he did. Maybe he was trying to undo the wrong he did in letting her off in the first place. He’s taking one for the team and most likely sacrificing his career – if not also his life – by taking the action that he took, considering how things tend to go for people who run afoul of the Clintons.
It’s anyone’s guess what will happen between now and November 8th.
Grab some popcorn, my friends. We’re in for an eventful week.
Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at email@example.com