Newly released testimony: Former top FBI lawyer says agency concerned Trump obstructed justice

[homersapien 11,460]

Interesting new information from newly released testimony.

Frankly, after Trump told the Russians why he had fired Comey, I am amazed there is even any doubt he was trying to obstruct justice.

(Also interesting, there were at least 2 Trump cabinet members who supported a move to remove Trump from office via the 25th amendment.)

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/09/fbi-doj-trump-obstructed-justice-james-baker-1264092

James Baker, the former top lawyer of the FBI, told lawmakers last fall that there were widespread concerns inside the FBI that President Donald Trump had attempted to obstruct the bureau's investigation into his campaign's links to Russians, according to a newly released transcript of Baker's testimony.

Under questioning in 2018 from a Democratic committee lawyer, Baker described numerous officials who were distressed that the president may have obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. Baker said he had personal concerns and that they were shared by not just top FBI brass but within other divisions and at the Justice Department as well.

"The leadership of the FBI, so the acting director ... The heads of the national security apparatus, the national security folks within the FBI, the people that were aware of the underlying investigation and who had been focused on it," Baker said, running through a list of officials he said were worried that the president may have fired Comey to hinder the Russia investigation.

Baker said other FBI executives informed him that Justice Department officials raised concerns about obstruction by Trump as well.

His comments, some of which have been revealed in press reports in recent months, were included in a 152-page transcript of Baker's testimony to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees in October 2018, when Republicans led an investigation into the handling of the FBI's Russia probe. The transcript was released Tuesday by the panel's top Republican, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), who has been incrementally entering testimony from last year's investigation into the congressional record.

Baker's comments take on added significance in light of the impending release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report. Mueller inherited the FBI's Russia probe and the obstruction probe that began after Comey's firing. In a four-page memo, Attorney General William Barr indicated that Mueller reached no traditional conclusion on the obstruction probe, prompting an outcry from congressional Democrats who demanded more details.

Barr said Tuesday he intends to release a redacted version of Mueller's findings within a week.

In the transcript of his testimony, Baker added that he was briefed on conversations between former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe — who assumed leadership of the FBI after Comey's firing — and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about whether Rosenstein could wear a wire to gather evidence in an obstruction probe. Though officials close to Rosenstein have called his suggestion a joke, Baker told lawmakers that he had a far different impression.

"This was not a joking sort of time. This was pretty dark," Baker said.

Baker, who said he didn't personally meet with Rosenstein but had been informed of his comments by McCabe, described an environment in which Rosenstein was upset that Trump had used his memo criticizing Comey's leadership of the FBI as a pretense for firing him.

“In the context of those conversations at some point in time I thought it was — my understanding was it was the deputy attorney general who came up with the idea of wearing a wire into a conversation with the president and that my understanding from my conversations with at least with Andy and/or Lisa was that they took it as a serious statement, that it was a serious thing to think about," Baker said.

Baker also recounted, from a discussion he was briefed on by McCabe, that Rosenstein told McCabe two members of Trump's cabinet had endorsed the notion of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

"[M]y understanding was that there was a conversation in which it was said, I believe by the [deputy Attorney General], that there were — that there were two members of the cabinet who were willing to go down this road already," Baker told lawmakers.

 

[Hspoprn 199]

Yawn. Haters gonna hate.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

It seems some have forgotten the real reason Comey was fired. I suggest research is in order.

[jj3jordan 2,061]

They think tweeting is obstruction.  Sad.

[augolf1716 21,309]

ZZZZZZZ

[homersapien 11,460]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

It seems some have forgotten the real reason Comey was fired. I suggest research is in order.

While there may or may not have been other reasons to fire him, but Trump said he fired him over the "Russian thing".

No research needed for that. 

[homersapien 11,460]

13 hours ago, augolf1716 said:

ZZZZZZZ

Just ignore the thread if it bores you.  This forum is supposed to be about substantive argument.

[augolf1716 21,309]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Just ignore the thread if it bores you.  This forum is supposed to be about substantive argument.

Not bored was just sleepy homey

[AFTiger 282]

Homer, in attacking AG Barr, are Democrats obstructing justice in his investigation of unlawful spying on the Republican presidential campaign of 2016?

Be consistent now.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Homer, in attacking AG Barr, are Democrats obstructing justice in his investigation of unlawful spying on the Republican presidential campaign of 2016?

Be consistent now.

There's a monster difference.  Dems going after Barr has no legal bearing because they aren't his boss.  They have no way to obstruct as the FBI is a part of the Executive branch.

Trump is, quite literally, the AG's boss (and thus the Special Counsel's as well).

[AFTiger 282]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

There's a monster difference.  Dems going after Barr has no legal bearing because they aren't his boss.  They have no way to obstruct as the FBI is a part of the Executive branch.

Trump is, quite literally, the AG's boss (and thus the Special Counsel's as well).

You are wrong.

Trump was accused of obstructing justice because of his criticism of Mueller. The Democrats are engaging in the same behavior hence by their own definition are obstructing justice.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

You are wrong.

Trump was accused of obstructing justice because of his criticism of Mueller. The Democrats are engaging in the same behavior hence by their own definition are obstructing justice.  

Actually, from a legal standpoint, I'm not.

But let's put it this way.  If your boss criticizes your work, are you more or less likely to change how you do things?  That's the point.

[homersapien 11,460]

3 hours ago, augolf1716 said:

Not bored was just sleepy homey

Apparently not to sleepy to post and let us know.

[homersapien 11,460]

41 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Homer, in attacking AG Barr, are Democrats obstructing justice in his investigation of unlawful spying on the Republican presidential campaign of 2016?

Be consistent now.

Whose "attacking" Barr?  Certainly not me.  Based on prior statements regarding the Mueller report and executive privilege, I do have doubts about his objectivity though. Is that what you mean by "attacking"?

Having said that, I welcome whatever investigation he thinks he needs to make.  Just let us know the findings.

[homersapien 11,460]

30 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

You are wrong.

Trump was accused of obstructing justice because of his criticism of Mueller. The Democrats are engaging in the same behavior hence by their own definition are obstructing justice.  

Not exactly. 

For one, he fired Comey due to the "Russian thing" as he said himself. 

Course, we don't yet know what else is in Mueller's report regarding obstruction of justice.

[AFTiger 282]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Whose "attacking" Barr?  Certainly not me.  Based on prior statements regarding the Mueller report and executive privilege, I do have doubts about his objectivity though. Is that what you mean by "attacking"?

Having said that, I welcome whatever investigation he thinks he needs to make.  Just let us know the findings.

Schumer, Pelosi, Schiff, and every other Dem are calling for for his removal.   From NBC https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/unfounded-irresponsible-dems-rip-barr-remark-about-spying-trump-campaign-n993176

[AFTiger 282]

"

26 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Actually, from a legal standpoint, I'm not.

But let's put it this way.  If your boss criticizes your work, are you more or less likely to change how you do things?  That's the point.

From a factual standpoint, you are wrong.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Schumer, Pelosi, Schiff, and every other Dem are calling for for his removal.   From NBC https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/unfounded-irresponsible-dems-rip-barr-remark-about-spying-trump-campaign-n993176

Well it is irresponsible to say to Congress there is spying going on when you have provided zero proof of it.  Especially when he had to backtrack on that comment.

[AFTiger 282]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not exactly. 

For one, he fired Comey due to the "Russian thing" as he said himself. 

Course, we don't yet know what else is in Mueller's report regarding obstruction of justice.

He fired Comey based on the recommendation from AAG Rosentein. AG Barr says there was no obstruction. Mueller report next week.

[AFTiger 282]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well it is irresponsible to say to Congress there is spying going on when you have provided zero proof of it.  Especially when he had to backtrack on that comment.

He said what he believed and said he was going to investigate. Requirement of proof for an accusation is a new tact for Dims, ie Rep Schiff has offered no proof for his accusations. Consistency would be nice. 

https://www.apnews.com/eac9c8f45ed84fb9a3c1f5c486f5c09e

[homersapien 11,460]

18 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

1) He fired Comey based on the recommendation from AAG Rosentein.

2) AG Barr says there was no obstruction. Mueller report next week.

1) Trump said he fired him for the "Russian thing" in a public interview.  He also alluded to it in a meeting with Russian diplomats. Those are facts.

2) If so, then Barr misrepresented Mueller's report.  Mueller did not say there was "no obstruction".

This is exactly why Democrats are criticizing and are skeptical of Barr.

[homersapien 11,460]

1 minute ago, AFTiger said:

He said what he believed and said he was going to investigate. Requirement of proof for an accusation is a new tact for Dims, ie Rep Schiff has offered no proof for his accusations. Consistency would be nice. 

https://www.apnews.com/eac9c8f45ed84fb9a3c1f5c486f5c09e

It's irresponsible to say "spying" without providing any evidence. He also admitted that he didn't know if such an investigation ("spying") was justified or not.  Such language mimics Trump.  And let's not forget, Barr is the AG for the American people, not just for Trump.

Another reason why Democrats don't trust Barr.

I am going to make a wild guess here, but I would think that evidence of Russian interference in the election - particularly by colluding with one of the campaigns - would be sufficient reason to investigate.

[homersapien 11,460]

7 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

He said what he believed and said he was going to investigate. Requirement of proof for an accusation is a new tact for Dims, ie Rep Schiff has offered no proof for his accusations. Consistency would be nice. 

https://www.apnews.com/eac9c8f45ed84fb9a3c1f5c486f5c09e

If you are referring to "collusion" with the Russians, the evidence is out there for all to see, starting with the Trump tower meeting and coverup.

If you are referring to "criminal conspiracy",  Schiff has said that he doesn't know if the legal standard for establishing that was met, as determined by the Mueller investigation.

He's been consistent all along.  You just haven't been listening closely.

[AFTiger 282]

On fact, the Russian collusion was with Hillary.

[homersapien 11,460]

1 minute ago, AFTiger said:

On fact, the Russian collusion was with Hillary.

Perhaps Mueller addressed that in his investigation.

But since you apparently know the facts, how about presenting them?