Should Comey Be Prosecuted?

If, as the liberal lynch mob insists, President Trump tried to intimidate former FBI Director James Comey into ending his investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, it is arguably worthy of the charge of obstruction of justice. But if it is true and Comey failed to report it, James Comey could be prosecuted as well. As Fox News analyst Greg Jarrett reported Tuesday:

Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump. Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation. Good lawyers do that routinely.

Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation…

Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law. 

So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it. 

Certainly, Comey had ample opportunity to report Trump’s alleged obstruction. He recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his Hamlet-like angst over holding the election in his hands. He could have but did not bring up the obstruction claim then. Comey met with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and ranking member Mark Warner and apparently disclosed no obstruction claim. One would suggest the reason Comey has not raised the obstruction claim publicly is because it didn’t happen. If it did, again, Comey should be prosecuted for not reporting it. Is it possible that out of spite Comey let others read the unseen memo knowing that the media would embellish and speculate, all just to get back at Trump for his firing?

The usual suspects in the liberal media have branded the timing of President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey as suspicious, accusing Trump of trying to block an investigation into alleged collusion with Russia. Never mind that even the likes of California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein admit there is no evidence of any such thing or the Congressional testimony of acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe that Trump has not interfered or could not interfere, with an investigation that, contrary to rumors, is adequately funded.

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe” Show on MSNBC that he sees no proof of obstruction of justice either in the firing of Comey or the firing of Acting Atty. Gen. Sally Yates:

Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley commented on recent reports surrounding President Donald Trump’s firing of both former FBI Director James Comey and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and memos Comey has about his interactions with Trump.

Turley called those instances “pretty thin soup for either a criminal or impeachment proceeding.”

When asked if Trump’s actions reached a level of obstruction of justice charge, Turley said, “This isn’t going to be real popular, but I don’t think so. My family has been pressing me on this. It’s sort of like going cross-country with them and saying, are we there yet? Are we there yet? Everyone wants to reach that point. You say, I can still see our house. It’s only been 150 days or so since the inauguration. The fact is, I don’t think this makes out an obstruction case.”

One wonders if Comey wrote a memo about the meeting between AG Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on the tarmac while Hillary was under investigation for real crimes? Do the liberals want to see it, or does it only depend on whose ox is being gored?

Multiple sources, and not anonymous ones, have said that Comey’s firing did not and could not have impeded the investigation and that in fact President Trump never tried to. Trump had the right to fire Comey if Trump didn’t like the color of Comey’s tie.

If Trump in fact did try to obstruct justice, Comey’s failure to report it is itself a crime. Maybe it is James Comey who should lawyer up.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.        

If, as the liberal lynch mob insists, President Trump tried to intimidate former FBI Director James Comey into ending his investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, it is arguably worthy of the charge of obstruction of justice. But if it is true and Comey failed to report it, James Comey could be prosecuted as well. As Fox News analyst Greg Jarrett reported Tuesday:

Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump. Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation. Good lawyers do that routinely.

Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation…

Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law. 

So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it. 

Certainly, Comey had ample opportunity to report Trump’s alleged obstruction. He recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his Hamlet-like angst over holding the election in his hands. He could have but did not bring up the obstruction claim then. Comey met with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and ranking member Mark Warner and apparently disclosed no obstruction claim. One would suggest the reason Comey has not raised the obstruction claim publicly is because it didn’t happen. If it did, again, Comey should be prosecuted for not reporting it. Is it possible that out of spite Comey let others read the unseen memo knowing that the media would embellish and speculate, all just to get back at Trump for his firing?

The usual suspects in the liberal media have branded the timing of President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey as suspicious, accusing Trump of trying to block an investigation into alleged collusion with Russia. Never mind that even the likes of California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein admit there is no evidence of any such thing or the Congressional testimony of acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe that Trump has not interfered or could not interfere, with an investigation that, contrary to rumors, is adequately funded.

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe” Show on MSNBC that he sees no proof of obstruction of justice either in the firing of Comey or the firing of Acting Atty. Gen. Sally Yates:

Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley commented on recent reports surrounding President Donald Trump’s firing of both former FBI Director James Comey and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and memos Comey has about his interactions with Trump.

Turley called those instances “pretty thin soup for either a criminal or impeachment proceeding.”

When asked if Trump’s actions reached a level of obstruction of justice charge, Turley said, “This isn’t going to be real popular, but I don’t think so. My family has been pressing me on this. It’s sort of like going cross-country with them and saying, are we there yet? Are we there yet? Everyone wants to reach that point. You say, I can still see our house. It’s only been 150 days or so since the inauguration. The fact is, I don’t think this makes out an obstruction case.”

One wonders if Comey wrote a memo about the meeting between AG Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on the tarmac while Hillary was under investigation for real crimes? Do the liberals want to see it, or does it only depend on whose ox is being gored?

Multiple sources, and not anonymous ones, have said that Comey’s firing did not and could not have impeded the investigation and that in fact President Trump never tried to. Trump had the right to fire Comey if Trump didn’t like the color of Comey’s tie.

If Trump in fact did try to obstruct justice, Comey’s failure to report it is itself a crime. Maybe it is James Comey who should lawyer up.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.        

RECENT VIDEOS