Home Committed Conservative Views Comey Bombshell: Trump NOT Under FBI Investigation & Did NOT Obstruct Justice

Comey Bombshell: Trump NOT Under FBI Investigation & Did NOT Obstruct Justice

2035
2
SHARE
Photo from BBC

I read the Comey statement given to the Senate Select Committee today before his testimony tomorrow.  It provides a few titillating new details not previously leaked.  It does nothing to advance a legal case for obstruction of justice.  Literally, it does nothing but hurt such a case.  The only new, relevant fact in that statement was Comey confirming what Mr. Trump and two US Senators told us as late as May 3, 2017.  Mr. Trump was not under FBI Investigation.  That wasn’t news to people who could read.

Comey’s account does add fuel to the fire that this President has judgment issues, and he clearly does not understand his role or the abuses of power with which he flirts.  That too has not changed from my analysis.

The Comey statement, in my opinion, does further damage this President politically because it shines a light on his character that reinforces the idea that he is unfit to be President.   While the Comey statement, taken as true, brings us no closer to a federal charge of obstruction of justice, it weakens the President.  It also brings him closer to either impeachment or a 25th Amendment movement.  Impeachment, after losing the House, is the most likely adverse scenario Mr. Trump might face, though I still strongly doubt impeachment and conviction are possible on any known fact.

Internet hyperventilating is at a fever pitch, as partisans, fools, and internet lawyers choke on their own legal ignorance. Some of that was set in motion when CNN “legal analyst” Jeffrey Toobin, tweeted out this:

Toobin has not practiced law in nearly 24 years.  He left the practice under a bit of cloud related to an allegation that he hauled off the work of independent counsel Walsh during the Iran Contra investigation to write a book.  Still, Toobin’s legal resume is not fluff, and he has been writing and doing legal analysis for twenty-plus years.  His stamp of surety on the promise of an obstruction charge carries credibility with the unwashed masses … which is why it was so irresponsible.

I am not a paid legal analyst for CNN, though I have appeared as a legal analyst and expert hundreds of times on radio, TV, and cable. I also taught law, and well, I still practice law.  So, I don’t just play lawyer on TV.

Mr. Toobin’s legal conclusions are without foundation, and likely colored by both his disdain for President Trump and his political views.  I am not a Trump supporter either, but I don’t let my views of his acts and conduct shade my analysis.

The question of obstruction of justice is one that requires the application of facts to the law.  The legal elements of obstruction of justice are quite hard to prove, and it is only through the application of facts that we can guess if any reasonable prosecutor can meet his or her burden.

Without some damaging facts, not yet known or public, there are no facts that support a prosecution of the President for obstruction of justice, and the Comey statement only secures the President’s legal standing.

Mr. Toobin … sir … I mean … there are zero facts that support that legal charge … PERIOD.

Indeed, one might credibly argue that the Comey statement, by itself, assuming all is true and there are no other unknown facts, absolves the President of an obstruction charge.

In fact, I responded just that way to Mr. Toobin on twitter … and boy did that bring out the rubes, radicals, and crazies … all of whom apparently follow him.

To be sure, there is profit in using one’s legal franchise to support one political view or another.  Ironically, while our site is named www.committedconservative.com, we refrain from politically predictable outcomes on both legal analysis and political analysis.  That’s not to say we don’t have strong conservative views, but in the end, the analysis is credible when it is … well … credible.

Anti-Trump conservative and legal expert David French likewise reached the same conclusion as I did with respect to the Comey statement.  He found it showed an abuse of Presidential power, but no obstruction.

French understands the law and applies it without remorse or political motivation. Toobin could learn from that, or he could keep firing-up the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, #resistance that fuels his network, twitter account, and magazine.

Here’s why Toobin and the #resistance are wrong about obstruction of justice.  Law and facts matter.  The obstruction statute most applicable to this case is 18 USC 1512(b), under which no prosecutor could get a conviction of the President under the known facts.

The statute reads:

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to—

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

According to the Comey statement, Mr. Trump purportedly said to him:

“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.”

Mr. Trump did no more.

He left the entire decision in the hands of the FBI Director.  He did not order the investigation ended.  He did not prevent it from continuing. He did not threaten any witness, prevent the collection of any evidence, nor attempt to thwart the investigation through intimidation or concealment.

The statute requires that he do one of those acts, and the intent element of obstruction requires that he did so for the purpose of obstructing a valid investigation.  Here’s the kicker, too.  He would have to have done so with full knowledge that his obstruction was to block an investigation into criminality about which he was aware and was trying to prevent from being found out.

He already had the “assurance” of Comey he wasn’t under investigation.

No credible lawyer … and no competent prosecutor … can bring these facts before a jury and hope to meet the elements of the obstruction statute.  Toobin has to know that.   I get that innumerable people on the internet don’t understand this, but a paid, CNN, legal analyst has to know that on the facts alleged solely by the Comey statement, there is no legal case.

Ironically, this brings us to the only real bombshell in this case, which is that the President was not under investigation.  That was the worst kept secret in DC.

And, why would Mr. Trump obstruct an investigation if he was not under investigation and the evidence did not lead to him?  Sure, he’s no genius, but even the naïve Mr. Trump isn’t going to hang himself when he had assurances from Comey that he was not under investigation.

Finally, and I must point this out again.  Mr. Comey had a duty to report the obstruction if he thought it took place.  He did not.  His carefully crafted memoranda drafted after each Trump encounter don’t report obstruction either.

The Comey statement certainly highlights the irregular conduct of a President in approaching him, but his contemporaneous memo doesn’t hint at illegality.  In fact, he specifically says that he took Trump’s statements on Flynn to apply to Flynn, and not the entire Russian investigation.

And to be clear, while Mr. Comey says he understood the President’s request to “see clear to letting this go” meant to drop the Flynn investigation.  Comey does not say that the President directed him to do so, or that through his conduct he was going to interfere in the investigation.

The President clearly doesn’t think much of the investigation generally, believes it is unfairly hurting him, and wanted the FBI to get moving on finishing up a politically motivated investigation that has, as of May 3, 2017, found no evidence of collusion between, Trump, Trump’s campaign and the Russians.

In Trump’s mind of course, the entire charge is nonsense, politically motivated, and as he correctly asserts, without any basis in fact. Accordingly, like any chief executive, he wants the waste of time and resources wrapped up.  Of course, he’s not the American CEO … and Trump’s complete foolishness in understanding the process and ethics have helped him to make a mountain out of a cavern.

Tomorrow, multiple Senators will ask Comey if he thought the President’s conduct rose to the level of legal obstruction.  He will be forced to say no.  He will hem and haw.  He will caveat.  He will make references to it being an on-going investigation.  But in the end, he has offered himself to cross examination.  As such, he will have to explain why, if it was obstruction, he didn’t report it.  Likewise, he will need to say how, if it was obstruction, it fit into this statute.

He won’t even try … but if he does … well … that might break the internet.

Of course, even Comey’s admission that Trump’s conduct in those meetings don’t rise to obstruction won’t end the political charge that “Trump is under investigation,” or that he “obstructed the investigation,” and he “colluded with the Russians” to “hack” the election.  That war on Trump will continue.

UPDATE 6-8-17 (9:09 a.m.)

CNN’s Toobin has been taking a shellacking from actual legal experts.  In this instance, liberal, renowned law professor and Toobin’s former professor takes him back to school.

Richard Kelsey

Author: Richard Kelsey

Richard Kelsey is the Editor-in-Chief of Committed Conservative.

He is an Attorney, a former Assistant Law School Dean, Law Professor, and Virginia state court law clerk. Dean Kelsey was also the CEO of a technology company specializing in combating cyber-fraud. He is a regular commentator on legal and political issues in print, radio and on TV.

Rich graduated from George Mason law school, clerked for the Arlington Circuit Court, and later joined an AM LAW top 10 law firm practicing commercial litigation. He left the firm to be counsel and CEO to a consulting firm, rising to CEO of Turiss, LLC, a technology firm specializing in computer forensics, digital investigations, and fighting cyber-fraud through civil intel services and new technologies. Upon the sale of the company, Kelsey returned to Mason Law, where in the years before his return, he both taught at the school and served as President of the Law Alumni Association. Kelsey was the Assistant Dean for Management and Planning.

At Mason, Dean Kelsey taught legal writing and analysis and an advanced litigation seminar. In 2014 he was elected by the graduating class as the faculty speaker at their graduation. While serving the former George Mason Law, Kelsey conceived of, planned, and brought to fruition Mason’s Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, known as CPIP.

Rich has appeared on radio, TV, and in print hundreds of times as both a legal expert and political and legal commentator. He provided the legal analysis for all stages of the Bob McDonnell trial and appeal for numerous outlets including NPR and WMAL. He writes on occasion for the American Spectator and CNSNews.com. He returned to private practice in September of 2016, and he is working on a book/expose on legal education.

In his free time, Rich is part of the baseball mafia of Northern Virginia, serving on numerous boards and as a little league and travel baseball coach.

Rich has many opinions, and they are his own. His Twitter handle is @richkelsey.

2 COMMENTS

  1. Would you tell someone under investigation that they’re under investigation? Or would you say not really, just so they don’t get spooked and start destroying evidence?

    • I understand your question … particularly given my legal background. Whatever might be a good strategy, doesn’t change the fact that Mr. Comey has now given written testimony to be entered in the record, and he has now given sworn testimony that Mr. Trump was NOT under investigation. In fact, as we point out, as of May 3, he still was not under investigation according to the US Senators then briefed.

      So … unless Comey testifies today that he was just lying to Trump to get him to make a mistake, we must accept his sworn statement that when he gave Mr. Trump “Assurances” that he was not being investigated, he was not lying to him.

Comments are closed.