If Trump’s Guilty Of Obstructing Justice So Is Obama

Posted on in Law behind the news, Politics, Trump

According to the memorandum leaked by an unnamed source, President Trump told then FBI director James Comey, “Michael Flynn is a nice guy. I hope you can let this go.” Immediately after this news broke last night, mental midgets in the mainstream media began jabbering about obstruction of justice. However, lost in this maelstrom of ignorance is someone who actually bothered to read the law. So who better to do it then the blind man.

Section 1510 of title 18 of the United States code is the section applicable to obstruction of justice. It criminalizes “willful acts by means of bribery” that have the effect of obstruction the communication of crime to federal investigators. Perhaps in-between their repetitive calls for impeachment, democrats can explain how a statement that Flynn is a “nice guy” rises to the level of bribery?

According to the US supreme court, “bribery requires proving a quid pro quo. A quid pro quo is defined as a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for official acts.

There is no evidence of a quid pro quo. Trump critics appear to assume Trump’s comments of Flynn being a nice guy constitutes a quid pro quo. Their argument is based on the notion that it was plausible for Comey to interpret Trump’s statements as a promise of continued employment if the Flynn investigation was ended.

However, this is contradicted by Comey’s own statements. According to Comey himself, the FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time. Since Comey did not perceive Trump’s comments to change this fact, nothing of value was transferred to Comey. Thus, a quid pro quo didn’t take place.

Even if the accusation of bribery could be proven, which it cannot, we must conclude Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of obstruction of justice as well. When President Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in June 2016, it was at the height of the FBI investigation into criminal wrongdoing on the part of Hillary for the mishandling of classified information. Undoubtedly Comey interpreted, as we all did, Obama’s endorsement as an indication of his belief in Hillary’s innocence. Undoubtedly Obama and Hillary both knew this endorsement would cause people to have this understanding.

However, it is a stretch to assume this understanding caused Comey to believe he would receive a benefit of guarantied future employment if he failed to recommend prosecution of Hillary. Thus no benefit was transferred to Comey. Thus no quid pro quo existed. The same applies to Comey’s alleged memorandum.