What’s the purpose of his testimony but to clear President Trump, and perhaps his own woeful reputation while not continue to appear as a tool for the press and the progressives who continually obstruct justice in Washington?
There is no there, there, with the exception of giving pretend journalists something to do with their time.
The National Review
June 7, 2017
Presuming Comey’s testimony before Congress takes this course, doesn’t this take the steam out of the “impeach Trump over obstruction of justice” argument?
Isn’t it safe to assume that the director of the FBI would recognize obstruction of justice when he saw it?
What, are Democrats going to argue that Trump obstructed justice with Comey and the FBI director just didn’t notice?
There will be much in former FBI Director James Comey’s upcoming congressional testimony that will make the White House uncomfortable, but he will stop short of saying the president interfered with the agency’s probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a source familiar with Comey’s thinking told ABC News.
Although Comey has told associates he will not accuse the president of obstructing justice, he will dispute the president’s contention that Comey told him three times he is not under investigation.
Well, duh. Did anyone actually believe that?
The president allegedly said he hoped Comey would drop the Flynn investigation, a request that concerned Comey enough that he documented the conversation in a memo shortly after speaking with the president.
In the memo, according to sources close to Comey who reviewed it, Trump said: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” during a February meeting.
The request made Comey uncomfortable, but the source tells ABC News that Comey has told associates he will not accuse the president of obstructing justice.
It’s not particularly wise or comfortable for a president to say out loud to the FBI director, I hope this doesn’t lead to a recommendation of an indictment.
But it’s not quite criminal, either.
See the entire article below.
In this instance, moreover, Trump’s exertion of pressure was relatively mild: He did not deny Comey the freedom to exercise his own judgment; the president expressed hope that Comey’s judgment would be exercised in Flynn’s favor. Any of us who has ever had an overbearing boss is familiar with this kind of prodding. It can be unpleasant, even anxiety-inducing. But Comey is a big boy, he has a history of not being intimidated by presidents, and what we’re talking about here is not exactly the rack.
This is no doubt why Comey did not resign, and did not report to the Justice Department, his FBI staff, or Congress, that he had witnessed — indeed, been the victim in a sense — of an obstruction of an FBI investigation…
To constitute an obstruction offense, the administration of law has to be impeded with a corrupt state of mind. Your disagreement with an exercise of discretion does not turn it into corruption. It may be a lapse in judgment, even a serious lapse; but that doesn’t make it a crime.
ADDENDA: A well-written point from Michael Brendan Doughterty, one of our new guys:
There is a deeper reason why so many in the media reach for car accidents and lightning bolts and other disasters that have no moral content.
They know that deep down they really don’t share a society with the Islamic extremists.
Their fellow citizenship exists only on paper, not as a social reality, and it gives them no authority to speak into that subculture, nor any hope of using their public platforms to reason with its members.
They have admitted by this evasion the very fact that they wish no one to acknowledge: that these fellow citizens are alien to us.