WASHINGTON (AP) — If prosecutors want the building blocks for a claim that President Donald Trump interfered with a federal investigation, legal experts say fired FBI Director James Comey has handed those over.
They say he did it by recounting details of interactions that could show the president intended to obstruct justice.
Comey this week has recounted conversations with Trump in which the president said he hoped Comey would let go of the FBI’s investigation of a former national security adviser. That’s coupled with Comey’s statement Thursday to a Senate panel that he believes Trump fired him in May to alter the bureau’s investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 election.
But proving obstruction of justice is difficult even in ordinary circumstances. Moreover, political and other legal factors decidedly weigh in Trump’s favor.
What other legal factors weigh in trumps favor?
http://resistancereport.com/politics/professor-explains-obstruction-justice/
Well according to George Terwillger, former Deputy AG, said on PBS News Hour that a sitting US President can’t be indicted while in office? Anyone have info on this?
(And the female panelist tried so hard when George was espousing not give off resting bitch face, kudos madame, kudos.)
The money tweet for me:
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/872538814098677760
There’s certainly a good constitutional argument to be made that you can’t try a sitting president on a criminal matter, that you have to impeach and convict them first. And you know that would have to be litigated all the way up to the supreme court if it were attempted.
Which is what really worries me: that soon we will have a president who most sensible people in the country agree is a proven criminal, and nothing will be done about it. Then all bets are off.