James Comey refused to say on Thursday if he believed President Donald Trump obstructed justice. But the ousted FBI director gave Robert Mueller plenty to work with as the special counsel investigates whether the president or his allies committed any crimes. During two riveting hours before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey testified Trump requested his "loyalty," urged him to end a probe into then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and then, while stewing over what the Russia investigation was doing to his administration, the president fired him. Comey declined to render his own legal opinion as to whether what Trump did was illegal, but he did explain that this critical question — along with the notes he took from his conversations with the president — now resides with Mueller. “I don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct,” Comey said. “I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that's an offense.” Mueller himself may not have been surprised by Comey’s much-anticipated Senate testimony since he’d already been briefed on what would be said. But with Comey’s story now widely aired publicly, it did give lawmakers, as well as veteran prosecutors and defense attorneys, a chance to reflect on what Mueller is now working with as he gets started on a probe that essentially has an unlimited budget and all the time he needs to go in whatever directions he needs to. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/james-comey-robert-mueller-trump-case-file-239319
There is "enough evidence" of possible obstruction of justice by Trump "to put it before a jury," Gerald Lefcourt, a New York attorney said. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/08/comey-probably-the-most-credible-witness-lawyer-says.html
If the Establishment believes Trump is a liability going into 2018, meaning that the Dems can take the House (Democrats Can Retake the House in 2018 Without Converting a Single Trump Voter ), then he's gone. If the Dems were to take the House, then expect a Clinton/Booker ticket in 2020.
Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge in Massachusetts who is now a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, spoke with the Gazette about the legal issues swirling around the matter. GAZETTE: Does the totality of Comey’s contacts with the president meet the legal standard for obstruction-of-justice or abuse-of-power charges? GERTNER: If what Comey said is believed, it could justify a further investigation into obstruction of justice on the part of the president. The matter certainly warrants an investigation. The elements of obstruction of justice include an act whose natural and probable consequences are to interfere with the administration of justice in some way. In the case of the president, the “act” can be “go easy on Flynn” or “lay off the Flynn investigation.” That clearly is an act that qualifies for obstruction of justice. And in addition, Comey said “I took it as an indication that he wanted me to lay off the investigation.” Here’s a sophisticated player, a former U.S. Attorney, FBI agent, FBI head, who said, “I understood what he was saying, and that’s what he was saying.” So concerned was he about it, in fact, that he did not share it with underlings for fear it would dampen the investigation. It does meet the legal standard for obstruction. The problem is that it’s Comey’s word against the president’s. So it’s not the kind of case that a prosecutor would go forward on without additional information. But in terms of an act that generically fits the standard? Yes, this is an act that fits the standard. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=06.09.2017 (1) What does she know though, let's ask Tucker Carlson and Steve Douchey for their legal opinion