Posted on 01/29/2018 7:45:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation into the possibility the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials appears to have morphed into an investigation into alleged obstruction of justice.
On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported Mueller has requested to question President Trump directly about his decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey, as well as the departure of Trumps former national security advisor, Michael Flynn. It is believed Mueller is looking for evidence that shows Trumps motive for firing Comey was to end the FBIs investigation into Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Although liberal pundits and many congressional Democrats have long argued Trumps decision to fire Comey was, in effect, a move to cover up other potential crimes, there is an ongoing debate among legal scholars over whether a president, the nations chief executive, can be charged with obstructing justice after firing a law enforcement official in the executive branch.
If such a scenario is possible, Democrats might want to tread cautiously, because recently revealed information about the FBIs handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation suggests President Barack Obamas administration may have also obstructed justice or, at the very least, had a very strong incentive to do so.
As Andrew McCarthy noted on Tuesday in National Review, a letter issued over the weekend by Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) discusses a draft of Comeys statement about the Clinton email investigation that is dated June 30, 2016. This draft differs, at least in one way, substantially from the infamous statement Comey made on July 5, during which he recommended no charges be brought against Clinton for her use of an illegal private email server. In the draft, Comey mentions that President Obama had communicated with Clinton while she served as secretary of state and was on the territory of an adversary:
We also assess that Secretary Clintons use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent, the draft statement reads. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries. That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clintons personal email account.
By the time the July 5 statement was issued letting Clinton off the hook, any mention of emails made by Obama to Clintons un-secure email account had been removed from Comeys statement, which is extremely fortunate for Obama, because if he did knowingly discuss classified information with Clinton through unsecured emails, he could also be investigated for violating federal laws forbidding such reckless activity. And theres evidence Obama may have attempted to cover his tracks by having his e-mails sealed under the guise of executive privilege. McCarthy explains:
Obama had his email communications with Clinton sealed. He did this by invoking a dubious presidential-records privilege. The White House insisted that the matter had nothing to do with the contents of the emails, of course; rather, it was intended to vindicate the principle of confidentiality in presidential communications with close advisers. With the media content to play along, this had a twofold benefit: Obama was able (1) to sidestep disclosure without acknowledging that the emails contained classified information and (2) to avoid using the term executive privilege with all its dark Watergate connotations even though that was precisely what he was invoking.
Obamas emails were sealed not long after he told CBS News in 2015 he found out about Clintons private email server at the same time everybody else learned it through news reports. This is important because emails produced by WikiLeaks show top Democrats and members of Obamas team reacted in a panic to the former presidents false statement. (Remember, we know Obama had personally emailed Clintons private email address.) Cheryl Mills, one of Clintons top lawyers told John Podesta, we need to clean this up he [Obama] has emails from her [Clinton] - they do not say state.gov. (State.gov indicates an email is an official government email address.)
With all these pieces in place, its easy to see why Obama wouldnt want Clinton to be prosecuted for illegally using a private email server. This isnt purely speculative. Obama said in an interview with Fox News Sunday in April 2016, in the midst of the FBIs Clinton investigation, he didnt think the allegations against Clinton were nearly as serious as everyone else did.
I continue to believe she has not jeopardized Americas national security, Obama said. Theres a carelessness in terms of managing emails that she has owned and she recognizes. But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective.
Then, Obama went on the campaign trail for Clinton, serving as another signal that he didnt think Clinton jeopardized Americas national security.
Of course, just because President Obama wanted Clinton to be cleared doesnt necessarily mean he acted (and thus obstructed justice) to ensure that would happen, but there is much evidence to suggest Comey and his team made up their mind about Clinton long before the investigation was finished. For instance, Comey drafted a statement exonerating Clinton well before he questioned her and more than a dozen other key witnesses. And newly released text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, former members of Muellers investigation team, show they, too, knew Comey wouldnt recommend charges be brought against Clinton before she was interviewed.
Heres what we know: (1) It appears that from the start, Comey had no intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton. (2) Comeys hand-selected team looking into the Trump and Clinton allegations included numerous members who disliked Trump and had ties to the Democratic Party. (3) If Clinton had been found guilty of mishandling classified information (or even simply charged), President Obama might have also faced intense scrutiny, and possibly an investigation of his own, because Obama also emailed Clinton on her private server. (4) It appears President Obama deliberately tried to use executive privilege to conceal the fact that he had communicated with Clinton via her private email server, which could be a crime if classified information had been exchanged. If those emails didnt contain important information, why did Obamas team work so hard to keep them from the public? (5) Comey recommended Clinton not be prosecuted for using an illegal email server.
If all these statements are true and that appears to be the case, in my opinion then the only obstructionelement missing is an actual request by President Obamas administration (which, remember, ran the Justice Department) for Comey to keep Clinton out of trouble. On that question, no evidence has yet to be revealed that would prove such a directive ever took place. But isnt there enough evidence here that a directive could have been issued to warrant an investigation? I dont know, but theres certainly as much evidence pointing to a Clinton e-mail cover-up as there is evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Im not a lawyer, but I think it would be exceptionally difficult to prove any president is guilty of obstructing justice after interfering with an FBI investigation. Presidents are in charge of managing the executive branch, and the Department of Justice and FBI both fall under that umbrella. However, if liberals continue to suggest Trump is guilty of such a crime for firing Comey while he was investigating alleged collusion, then they could end up putting President Obama who we now know had plenty of good, selfish reasons for ending the Clinton email investigation in an exceptionally difficult situation.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is your government. What a mess.
Probably. But if he did, nothing will be done about it.
Yep. Blackness trumps the responsibility to obey laws in this day.
It seems to me that an overt act such as destruction or falsification of evidence, or intimidation of witnesses, would be required to convict any president (Nixon, Obama, Trump, or any other) of obstructing justice. Merely exercising his constitutional prerogatives would not be it. This applies to both sides.
Do you really need to ask?
Mueller was appointed by one guy - Rod Rosenstein. No one else. Mueller was given absolute freedom, without oversight.
The basis for Mueller’s investigation is FBI fears of Russian “meddling” in the US election.
We already have concrete evidence these fears were based on a DNC/Clinton paid for opposition research that are clearly false. In fact, we know that the producer of this document, Fusion-GPS, received this fake information directly from Russia. Moreover, we know there was collusion within the FBI to promote this fake document and bury the Clinton email scandal, all to hinder Trump and promote Hillary Clinton
WHAT exactly is Mueller investigating?
WHAT exactly is Mueller investigating?
There never was a crime to start with.
Alan Dershowitz has covered this repeatedly.
WHAT exactly is Mueller investigating?
Rosenstein gave Mueller a wide open charter and a blank check to take out Trump by whatever means necessary. Sessions saw this and did nothing. Despite his convienient recusal he could and should have replaced Rosenstein. Sessions is the most disloyal person l have seen in a long time.
yes!
and he did again when he refused to deport the DACA kids!
Does a bear Obama in the woods?
Obama and Hillary get away with stuff by pretending to be dumb like the “SNL Caveman”.
Of Course he did!
Mueller is the cover up guy.
He is not investigating anything, he’s covering up the myriad crimes of the Kenyanesian Usurpation.
“WHAT exactly is Mueller investigating?”
What the DNC tells him to.
rwood
GITMO——further away from the USA.
Did Barack Obama Obstruct Justice in Clinton Email Case?
Does a bear shit in the Woods?
THAT is the ultimate in racism, isn’t it? The dems hide behind his blackness and the Repubs are scared to death to actually do anything about it because he has a good tan.
Exactly. And Rosenstein is an Obama holdover who is part of the McCabe/Strzok conspiracy. He had far more reason to recuse himself and distance himself than Sessions ever did, yet he failed to and went on to place Mueller. This is going to unfold to be a huge conspiracy to attempt a coup at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI.
This effort by Trump is not a seat of the pants operation. It’s a long game developed over years of planning. The strategy is built on one simple fact: there are strict procedures in place for wiretapping private citizens. There are also strict procedures in place to monitor government activity. By putting the mechanisms in place to watch the watchers, trump has the moral and legal high ground, the evidence to convict. Had Sessions interfered, none of this would be in full view and we would be rehashing part crimes that the public has already decided are no big deal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.