Draggingtree Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Liberty Law June 13, 2017|James Comey, Obstruction of Justice, the Flynn Investigation, The Unitary Executive Obstruction of Justice and the Unitary Executive by MIKE RAPPAPORT|2 Comments There has been much talk about President Trump’s statement to James Comey that he hoped that Comey could let the issue of prosecuting Michael Flynn go. Some people see in this statement an order that Comey not prosecute a criminal wrong, while others see merely a hope or request (but not an order) that Comey not prosecute. Yet, it is not clear how much it matters whether it was an order. Under a variety of circumstances, even an order to not prosecute Flynn might be entirely legal. Many commentators have focused on the fact that the President seemed to be “interfering” in a criminal investigation by the FBI. But that way of thinking about the matter seems problematic from an originalist and probably from a current law perspective as well. Under both of these perspectives, a strong argument exists that the President is legitimately involved in decisions of this sort. Let’s imagine that Director James Comey had concluded on his own that there was not enough evidence to continue an investigation into Flynn and had closed the investigation. That would normally not be enough to lead to obstruction of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now