Trump Presidency

[madhatter]

https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/evide ... 85726b962f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

worth a read...

[Coydog]

Comey is responding to a specific question about the DOJ and AJ, not POTUS.

correct, and as he noted if anyone were to try to halt an investigation for political purposes that would be huge, very huge...

going out on well not going out at all really I'm gonna say ZERO chance the comey memo leaked last week shows any type of request to halt an investigation for political purposes and if by some wild stretch of the imagination it did, comey would be guilty of failing to report that immediately...

so again ZERO CHANCE...

that's all in the encyclopedia brown detective book too...

Comey was the FBI directory conducting an investigation. He has no duty to turn over evidence during the investigation. And besides, since he was a civil authority, the information was automatically reported to a civil authority.

In any case, I'm not sure such a memo even exists as reported by the press, but it might - kinda like those Gump tapes. At least now we'll find that out and more.

actually:

under 18 U.S. Code Section 4, Comey is required by law to report any attempt - including by the President of the United States - to obstruct a federal investigation. Nope

Debunked here: No, Jim Comey Is Not In Legal Jeopardy
...

Let's start with the first of two statutes Jarrett cites: 18 USC 4. This is the general "misprision of felony" statute. It's one of the oldest crimes in the federal criminal code, I believe dating back to 1790. In its current form it provides:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. [emphasis added]

There are two obvious reasons why this statute does not apply to Comey's situation.

First, note the word "concealment." This is a stand-alone element of the offense, not just a superfluous verbal flourish restating the point that one must report. Just look at any federal pattern jury instruction: affirmative steps to conceal are required, not just the fact of failing to report the crime. See, e.g., Lancey v. United States, 356 F.2d 407, 4010 (9th Cir. 1966) (silence alone, without affirmative act of concealment, is insufficient). There is no basis for claiming that Jim Comey took affirmative steps to conceal any alleged obstruction by Donald Trump. To argue that Comey somehow affirmatively concealed something by taking care with who got to see his memo entirely collapses this distinction, and would extend liability for misprision to just about every criminal investigator and prosecutor in this country (given how routine it is for both investigators and prosecutors to create but limit circulation of documents with evidentiary content in this sense).

Second, and more fundamentally, Jarrett's op-ed implies that the obligation to report runs specifically to Justice Department prosecutors. That's not what the statute says, however, and of course the more obvious recipients for any such notificiations would be...the FBI. Jim Comey was, of course, FBI Director at all relevant times, and deeply engaged in supervision of existing, related criminal (and probably also counterintelligence) investigations. It's more than a stretch to suggest that the misprision statute somehow creates a "two-person" requirement for knowledge of possible federal crimes, such that it is not enough for one FBI person to be aware of the possible criminal behavior. A "crooked cop" scenario would of course be different, but no one is alleging (nor could they) that Jim Comey was in cahoots with a plan to obstruct the Flynn investigation.

Third, even if misprision concerns required Jim Comey to convey knowledge of Trump's actions to others at FBI, it remains quite possible that he did exactly this.

...

[madhatter]

Comey is responding to a specific question about the DOJ and AJ, not POTUS.

correct, and as he noted if anyone were to try to halt an investigation for political purposes that would be huge, very huge...

going out on well not going out at all really I'm gonna say ZERO chance the comey memo leaked last week shows any type of request to halt an investigation for political purposes and if by some wild stretch of the imagination it did, comey would be guilty of failing to report that immediately...

so again ZERO CHANCE...

that's all in the encyclopedia brown detective book too...

Comey was the FBI directory conducting an investigation. He has no duty to turn over evidence during the investigation. And besides, since he was a civil authority, the information was automatically reported to a civil authority.

In any case, I'm not sure such a memo even exists as reported by the press, but it might - kinda like those Gump tapes. At least now we'll find that out and more.

actually:

under 18 U.S. Code Section 4, Comey is required by law to report any attempt - including by the President of the United States - to obstruct a federal investigation. Nope

Debunked here: No, Jim Comey Is Not In Legal Jeopardy
...

Let's start with the first of two statutes Jarrett cites: 18 USC 4. This is the general "misprision of felony" statute. It's one of the oldest crimes in the federal criminal code, I believe dating back to 1790. In its current form it provides:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. [emphasis added]

There are two obvious reasons why this statute does not apply to Comey's situation.

First, note the word "concealment." This is a stand-alone element of the offense, not just a superfluous verbal flourish restating the point that one must report. Just look at any federal pattern jury instruction: affirmative steps to conceal are required, not just the fact of failing to report the crime. See, e.g., Lancey v. United States, 356 F.2d 407, 4010 (9th Cir. 1966) (silence alone, without affirmative act of concealment, is insufficient). There is no basis for claiming that Jim Comey took affirmative steps to conceal any alleged obstruction by Donald Trump. To argue that Comey somehow affirmatively concealed something by taking care with who got to see his memo entirely collapses this distinction, and would extend liability for misprision to just about every criminal investigator and prosecutor in this country (given how routine it is for both investigators and prosecutors to create but limit circulation of documents with evidentiary content in this sense). no one is arguing that...see below...

Second, and more fundamentally, Jarrett's op-ed implies that the obligation to report runs specifically to Justice Department prosecutors. That's not what the statute says, however, and of course the more obvious recipients for any such notificiations would be...the FBI. Jim Comey was, of course, FBI Director at all relevant times, and deeply engaged in supervision of existing, related criminal (and probably also counterintelligence) investigations. It's more than a stretch to suggest that the misprision statute somehow creates a "two-person" requirement for knowledge of possible federal crimes, such that it is not enough for one FBI person to be aware of the possible criminal behavior. A "crooked cop" scenario would of course be different, but no one is alleging (nor could they) that Jim Comey was in cahoots with a plan to obstruct the Flynn investigation.

Third, even if misprision concerns required Jim Comey to convey knowledge of Trump's actions to others at FBI, it remains quite possible that he did exactly this.

...

IT IS NEVER GOING TO BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION...that's the point, to argue so would open himself up to the argument that he did conceal it, begging the question why?...he would have failed to report the commission of felony against himself, one he considers to be of great magnitude should it occur and certainly would know occurred if it happened to him.......one that of course is unlikely to have ever occurred and even less likely to be proven to have occurred without that memo as evidence, particularly when comey and mc cabe both said there is no evidence of anyone attempting to interfere w the investigation...

ya see where that obstruction thing is going nowhere with the evidence we have to date? ya see where the memo is evidence of nothing and will never be submitted as evidence of anything should it actually surface in it's entirety...

now I suppose one could argue that the memo is indeed evidence of an attempt at obstruction and that comey just didn't recognize it as such, but given his testimony above it seems he's very well versed in what obstruction is and is not...

bottom line if it's evidence of obstruction why did comey hide it? he didn't discover it in the course of an investigation ( thus negating the whole premise that the failure to show the memo is a crime, or that any investigator with knowledge of a crime would also be guilty)no the failure to report an attempt at obstruction is the crime..., it would have been a crime committed against him...

if it's not evidence of a crime then it's simply a record of what occurred according to comey...he can then of course is under no obligation to report it..

ya see the difference between a prosecutor investigating a crime vs comey, who was allegedly the victim of a crime ( obstruction)...

again I'm gonna go w nearly zero chance trump is charged w obstruction...

debunker--debunked...

[Coydog]

IT IS NEVER GOING TO BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION...that's the point, to argue so would open himself up to the argument that he did conceal it, but he didn't begging the question why?...he would have failed to report the commission of felony against himself, one he considers to be of great magnitude should it occur and certainly would know occurred if it happened to him.......one that of course is unlikely to have ever occurred and even less likely to be proven to have occurred without that memo as evidence, particularly when comey and mc cabe both said there is no evidence of anyone attempting to interfere w the investigation...

Apparently as per procedure, Comey reported his notes to others in the FBI (civil authorities) and that's how it was leaked. I don't know if there is a memo or not, but Comey certainly won't be the one in legal jeopardy over it.

[madhatter]

IT IS NEVER GOING TO BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION...that's the point, to argue so would open himself up to the argument that he did conceal it, but he didn't begging the question why?...he would have failed to report the commission of felony against himself, one he considers to be of great magnitude should it occur and certainly would know occurred if it happened to him.......one that of course is unlikely to have ever occurred and even less likely to be proven to have occurred without that memo as evidence, particularly when comey and mc cabe both said there is no evidence of anyone attempting to interfere w the investigation...

Apparently as per procedure, Comey reported his notes to others in the FBI (civil authorities) and that's how it was leaked. I don't know if there is a memo or not, but Comey certainly won't be the one in legal jeopardy over it.

I haven't heard that anywhere...and IF that did happen I guess the consensus would be that none of them thought it was obstruction...


still going w virtually zero percent chance of obstruction charges...about the same for any involvement w trump and the russians directly...his campaign? maybe, I doubt that too but I can't rule out some obscure thing that supplies the raisin the D's desperately need...extremely unlikely that it leads to impeachment and absolutely zero chance of 25th amendment being enacted...

that's my take...

[freeski]

Here's a study out of Harvard on Trump's treatment in the press. Looks about right to me.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard ... media-bias" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[XtremeJibber2001]

Just keeps getting better - Trump can't stay out of his own way.

[freeski]

Just keeps getting better - Trump can't stay out of his own way.

Trump could have fired Comey and treated him with the respect he deserves and much of his problems would never have come about. The grandstander, showboat and now nut job comments are beneath the office. Making comments to the Russians about how getting rid of Comey would "ease the pressure". How hard is it to follow the law when POTUS? At least Obama was trying to pursue his agenda, get reelected when he got caught. Trump's just being an idiot.

Still better than Cankle. I hope if the reports are true of someone close to him on his staff is a person of interest. I hope it's his douche son in law.

[deadheadskier]

.

[madhatter]

.

any updates on that big raid? anyone get impeached yet? just checkin', it was a busy ski weekend...

[Atomic1]

What a GREAT speech Trump delivered in Saudi Arabia !

[madhatter]

What a GREAT speech Trump delivered in Saudi Arabia !

MSAGA!!!!hahahaha

[deadheadskier]

Trump gonna ask his daughter to return that money?

[freeski]

The money is for The World Bank Women's Entrepreneurs Fund. There is no Ivanka Fund. Anna Navarro is a jerk and has the most annoying accent in the world. Learn to speak the language...

[madhatter]

I'm an idiot that buys any partisan propaganda that comes down the pike

As the Daily Wire noted, the money is actually going toward a fund called Women Entrepreneurs Fund, which is run by the World Bank, not Ivanka. The only thing Ivanka has to do with the fund is that she proposed it. The Wall Street Journal reports : “Ms. Trump has made the promotion of women entrepreneurs a signature part of her focus since her father’s inauguration in January. She has advocated for issues such as paid family leave, though the issue has gained little traction in Congress. While she had proposed the idea of the World Bank fund, Ms. Trump doesn’t control it or raise money for it, one person familiar with the plans said.”

100 million dollars gets donated and all you can do is cry like a bitch... always that "silver lining" for you dhs?