Trump

[wufan]

Nonetheless, a poor reflection on Trump. He's so stupid he doesn't know how to consult his legal staff to see what is acceptable, what is unacceptable, and what will get him in trouble. Most corporations I've ever worked for the executive staff obtained a legal opinion before they started doing stupid things, as if they did not they would be shot at sunrise.

Just another data point that reflects on his personality, character, and inability to take advantage of good counsel. Along with me scratching my head and wondering how he ever made his money. He's really not very smart, not at least in the sense of being able to leverage advice and collaboration.

Total agree. Outside of the stupidity, which was a forgone conclusion in the initial statement, there is a potential "shifting boundary" that has the possibility of being over-stepped.

[wufan]

Disagree. If you've ever worked for someone, you would know there is no difference between those two statements.

One is a indirect, veiled statement, hinting at future problems. Something execs do when they want to 'get you on their team'. The other, is rather obvious and speaks for itself.

A senator just stated, while speaking to Comey, "if a robber points a gun at your head and says, 'I hope you'll give me your wallet', then the word 'hope' is the least important word in that statement." She then asked Comey not to respond.

This is important. The statement by itself is true because the robber uses threat (gun) to direct the outcome. In the Trump/Comey situation, the word "hope" is the MOST important word, because there is no direct threat (loss of job) to direct outcome. Because there is no direct threat, we must decide if there was implied threat. There may or may not be implied threat and it is up to the investigation to root that out.

The Senator had a very direct opportunity to ask Comey if he felt threatened and chose not to. Why would she do that?

[wufan]

Was there not a threat? Comey said he felt Trump was trying to get him to ask to keep his job.

Did Comey state that he felt his job was threatened? It's a VERY direct question and answer. Did anyone ask, and how did Comey respond?

[wufan]

I dont think how he felt matters in obstruction of justice

It does matter because if he didn't feel threatened AND Trump didn't intend to threaten then Trump was not obstructing justice. If Comey felt threatened, but Trump was intending not to threaten then Tump might still be guilty of obstructing pending further details. If Trump was threatening but Comey was to naive to recognize it then Trump was definitely obstructing justice.

[WuDrWu]

I don't really care what someone feels. I feel that you are a racist. So you're a racist, right? Of course not.

If you aren't sure, then you ask the question, ESPECIALLY if you are someone in a power position like FBI Director.

[jdshock]

If you can justify your loyalty to Trump because you're hanging your hat on the word "hope," then you'd be loyal had he said "if you don't stop investigating this guy, I'm going to fire you."

When your boss, who happens to be the president of the United States, says "I'd hope you can do x," I think you understand the ramifications of the statement.

[pinstripers]

Comey was ordered by Lynch. Not ordered by Trump.

[pinstripers]

Distract. Distract. Distract.

I thought any idiot could see that difference.

[pinstripers]

Well guess Comey and this gal is an idiot.

no, guess again

[CBB_Fan]

Comey was ordered by Lynch. Not ordered by Trump.

The difference between Trump and Lynch is not orderedvs not ordered but obstruction vs not obstruction. What Lynch did wasn't necessarily ethical and certainly rises to the level of a conflict of interest, but it did not and could not affect the investigation itself. The only thing that actually changed was the public perception of the case, not the actions of the investigators or the information they investigated.

On the other hand, Trump's actions towards Comey could have real, tangible affects on the investigation into Trump's associates. Even if he didn't dissuade Comey, his actions could show a clear roadblock and potential loss of employment to investigators.

Neither action was particularly ethical, but Trump's was much more explicitly illegal, in that obstruction of justice (U.S. Code § 1503 (a)) is an actual offense and using the FBI as PR is not.

[SB Shock]

Distract. Distract. Distract.

But there was actual harm to the country because of Hillary and her server and he refused to hold anybody accountable. Foreign intelligence (chinese, russian?) services likely had infiltrated it and were reading state department email and classified information. Then you have the whole reason why the server was setup - to try and keep government emails non-discoverable for FOI request. Comey admitted today he was being pressured by Lynch and knew he felt he couldn't let her make the decision because of conflict of interest, but admitted a special counsel should be named but didn't want to do it because he didn't think it was fair. So where is the transparency?

[SB Shock]

Here are 3 cases in which someone used the phrase "I hope" and were convicted of obstruction.

U.S. v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975 https://casetext.com/case/us-v-mcdonald-29 screen shot of text

This guy robbed two banks.

US v johnson https://casetext.com/case/us-v-johnson-1289

This guy was charged with distributing cocaine

US v Chujoy http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FD...U.S. v. CHUJOY

This one was witness tampering and obstruction of justice - but I don't see anywhere where it was done with "I hope"

[SB Shock]

I agree it is sketchy but considering she isn't president of the USA, I'm less concerned.

You should be. Comey said:

The security culture of the State Department …was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”

This type of culture lead to 22.1 million people personal information (including anybody with a security clearance) being compromised under the OPM database hack. This was done by China.

You can't apply the rule of law selectively, if you want to keep the rule of law. And there is a sizable audience that believe that happened with Hillary.

[jdshock]

This guy was charged with distributing cocaine

What makes you believe that is or is not relevant to the holding regarding obstruction of justice? There are a million reasons this case isn't important precedent for the Trump stuff, but I don't really understand why you think the cocaine has anything to do with it?

[SB Shock]

What makes you believe that is or is not relevant to the holding regarding obstruction of justice? There are a million reasons this case isn't important precedent for the Trump stuff, but I don't really understand why you think the cocaine has anything to do with it?

I took a cursory look to see and really expected to see some case where some politician or official had been convicted of obstruction by uttering the words "I Hope", not bank robbers and cocaine dealers.