Question - Comey memo related - can anyone explain?

[casa_mugrienta]

If the Trumpster indeed engaged in obstruction of justice in his conversations with Comey, what , if anything, would have been required of Comey in response?

I'm just wondering how much a memo could stick. He said she said. Even Clinton's obstruction charge had trouble sticking, and that involved gifts that were presented as evidence if I remember correctly.

 

[$kully]

I'm assuming there's more we don't know. The Comey Memo alone probably isn't really the smoking gun many think it to be. But in the context of everything else that's been going on. With the Russia investigation, the Sessions recusal, the Comey firing, etc it carries a lot more weight. We're also assuming that we know everything that the investigators know which is pretty improbable. Odds are they know a lot more than we do.

 

[hal9000]

I'm assuming there's more we don't know. The Comey Memo alone probably isn't really the smoking gun many think it to be. But in the context of everything else that's been going on. With the Russia investigation, the Sessions recusal, the Comey firing, etc it carries a lot more weight. We're also assuming that we know everything that the investigators know which is pretty improbable. Odds are they know a lot more than we do.

Do people actually think there was only one memo?

 

[$kully]

I'm assuming there's more we don't know. The Comey Memo alone probably isn't really the smoking gun many think it to be. But in the context of everything else that's been going on. With the Russia investigation, the Sessions recusal, the Comey firing, etc it carries a lot more weight. We're also assuming that we know everything that the investigators know which is pretty improbable. Odds are they know a lot more than we do.

Do people actually think there was only one memo?

Talking to my republitard trumpeteer friends they constantly cite a "lack of evidence" as if we've been privy to everything every step of the way in the multiple investigations that have been going on. It's pretty silly but people actually do.

 

[Woke AF]

I read the courts have upheld FBI notes as solid evidence. So there is precedence. And his note taking is supposedly quite detailed.

Comey seems to be no dumby, killing off Hillary and now cheeto. Impressive if it plays out.

 

[GromsDad]

I just wrote a memo......dated it last Thursday. Anonymous sources will leak it next month. Stay tuned.

 

[hal9000]

I just wrote a memo......dated it last Thursday. Anonymous sources will leak it next month. Stay tuned.

You do realize that a 2017 FBI memo is not the same as a 1950s FBI memo, right?

 

[Kento]

When I used to work at County level government, it was standard practice to document every conversation or meeting in a memo that became part of the file on record. And yes, even pre-scanner days, those were subpoenaed along with everything else. They also were a CYA in case anyone tried to dispute the content of conversation/meeting.

If it's a standalone item, I think you'd have a hard time coming to a legal decision but, when taken in context with testimony and other evidence, it carries a little more weight.

Also, pre-trial, it is not common practice to leak evidence to the public. It makes it harder to have a fair and impartial jury. Do you think every piece of evidence was provided to the public before OJ was on trial?

 

[hal9000]

When I used to work at County level government, it was standard practice to document every conversation or meeting in a memo that became part of the file on record. And yes, even pre-scanner days, those were subpoenaed along with everything else. They also were a CYA in case anyone tried to dispute the content of conversation/meeting.

If it's a standalone item, I think you'd have a hard time coming to a legal decision but, when taken in context with testimony and other evidence, it carries a little more weight.

But according to GD, anyone can just write a memo after the fact and backdate it.

 

[Kento]

When I used to work at County level government, it was standard practice to document every conversation or meeting in a memo that became part of the file on record. And yes, even pre-scanner days, those were subpoenaed along with everything else. They also were a CYA in case anyone tried to dispute the content of conversation/meeting.

If it's a standalone item, I think you'd have a hard time coming to a legal decision but, when taken in context with testimony and other evidence, it carries a little more weight.

But according to GD, anyone can just write a memo after the fact and backdate it.

But GromsDad is an ignorant fool who doesn't know sh!t.

 

[john4surf]

I always documented relevant conversations during the course of an investigation; however, I learned early to not simply note the date but the time of the conversation and time the memorandum and/or working notes were written. It made a significant impact to a jury and judge when introduced during the trial phase. My testimony was simply put, I wrote the documentation of the meeting/conversation as soon as practical while the meeting/conversation was still fresh in my mind. Never polled a jury post trial but figured every little bit helped and, the notes/memorandums were always admitted as evidence... usually over the objection of defense attorneys.

 

[GromsDad]

When I used to work at County level government, it was standard practice to document every conversation or meeting in a memo that became part of the file on record. And yes, even pre-scanner days, those were subpoenaed along with everything else. They also were a CYA in case anyone tried to dispute the content of conversation/meeting.

Interesting how you mention they were a CYA. Ya think people might write their memos in such a way that they could be useful down the road to cover their ass? When a city BA tried to shake me down if I wanted their business with his city a while back do you think he wrote accurately in his memos about our meeting? Or do you think he left that part out?

 

[Kento]

When I used to work at County level government, it was standard practice to document every conversation or meeting in a memo that became part of the file on record. And yes, even pre-scanner days, those were subpoenaed along with everything else. They also were a CYA in case anyone tried to dispute the content of conversation/meeting.

Interesting how you mention they were a CYA. Ya think people might write their memos in such a way that they could be useful down the road to cover their ass? When a city BA tried to shake me down if I wanted their business with his city a while back do you think he wrote accurately in his memos about our meeting? Or do you think he left that part out?

This is why you generally don't attend the high-importance meetings alone. And both parties keep their own records of conversation.

If you're being cross-examined or even deposed and your testimony deviates from the memo, it can also expose your ass. Badly. Lawyers can be quite crafty at doing that by asking the same question different ways.

 

[Ifallalot]

This isn't obstruction of justice because Trump is ostensibly Comey's boss and has the right to tell him to work on other things.

 

[john4surf]

This isn't obstruction of justice because Trump is ostensibly Comey's boss and has the right to tell him to work on other things.

^ This ^

I don't know how many federal cases I participated on in my career that were declined by the AUSA because the US Attorney and the Attorney General instructed on their flavor (crime) of the month. Agent's I worked with were not averse to looking for case connection to other judicial districts in hopes of having their cases prosecuted when 'politics' negated the possibility of getting an AUSA assigned to a particular case. In fact, many cases were not prosecuted in federal court because the threshold of $ loss wasn't high enough to meet minimums as set by the districts US Attorney or, as set by DOJ.

Don't get me wrong, Trump is now on that slippery slope and with the press after him and none of the Repulican leadership coming to his defense, he still has the 'right' to select his Attorney General, Director of the FBI, Commissioner of Customs, etc., and to prioritize prosecutable 'crimes'.

 

[$kully]

This isn't obstruction of justice because Trump is ostensibly Comey's boss and has the right to tell him to work on other things.

So what you're saying is Trump is king, is above the law and can't be investigated?

 

[Ifallalot]

This isn't obstruction of justice because Trump is ostensibly Comey's boss and has the right to tell him to work on other things.

So what you're saying is Trump is king, is above the law and can't be investigated?

Read what John4Surf wrote

 

[john4surf]

The president, like kings can 'forgive' the perpetrator of any crime. It comes with the office. Not saying we have to like it :-(

 

[$kully]

The president, like kings can 'forgive' the perpetrator of any crime. It comes with the office. Not saying we have to like it :-(

What if he is the perpetrator?

 

[Woke AF]

If true, why would any president be concerned with any investigation, law, congressman...? I guess if he was to pardon himself he would need to be convicted first.

The Framers wanted to get away from kings, tyrants and the like. They wrote the constitution with checks an balances because of this. Has it been interpreted to be watered down so much?