30 May 2018
Yesterday’s news from the New York Times brought us yet more evidence that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice (at a minimum).
Mr. Trump, who had told aides that he needed a loyalist overseeing the inquiry, berated Mr. Sessions and told him he should reverse his decision, an unusual and potentially inappropriate request.
The New York Times is being generous here. Asking Sessions to “unrecuse” himself is most definitely inappropriate, and it’s also illegal. It’s called Obstruction of Justice, and it is one of three articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee before Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency.
This isn’t the first evidence we’ve seen that Trump attempted to obstruct justice. The most blatant example was when he fired Comey and then admitted on national television that it was because of “the Russia thing”
There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that Trump has committed crimes related to witness tampering.
The special counsel in the Russia investigation has learned of two conversations in recent months in which President Trump asked key witnesses about matters they discussed with investigators, according to three people familiar with the encounters.
Trump has also lied under oath, on multiple occasions, in civil trials. That particular crime is known as perjury.
Barbara Comstock is on record as saying all three of these crimes are not only felonies, but also grounds for impeachment.
“It’s about perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. These are felonies. These are also impeachable offenses.”
Comstock is also on record as saying that constant lying by the administration is “unacceptable”
“What we have had is eight months of lying and we can’t allow that … it was on your tax dollars.”
Of course that was back in 1998 when Bill Clinton was President. Apparently Comstock is not bothered by the over 3,000 lies told by Trump in his brief tenure as President.
According to Comstock, we shouldn’t listen to anyone on TV saying this does not amount to high crimes or treason.
“When you hear members and people on TV saying this isn’t high crimes or treason, that’s not the test here.”
The important thing, according to 1998 Comstock, is that we make it clear that the President is not above the law.
“What this is really about is the rule of law … It’s about whether the President follows the rule of law and whether or not he will be held accountable if he has not done so.”