The legal experts agreed that the story of James Comey about his nine conversations with Donald trump earlier this year he presented convincing evidence of obstruction of justice and attempts to bury the investigation of contacts campaigns trump with Moscow.
However, concern was expressed mixed opinions as to whether this is sufficient for the admission of guilt or impeachment. The provisions on impeachment must pass the House of representatives, and the majority of Republicans on Wednesday night, it seems, spoke in support of trump, despite the specific allegations of Komi.
Statement of Komi before the intelligence Committee of the Senate was published in Wednesday before his long-awaited appearance before the Committee on Capitol hill on Thursday.
Some observers said that this statement will become an additional impetus for numerous investigations concerning campaign trump, which in turn can lead to even more devastating indications that the Republicans will be hard to ignore. Evidence of Komi was also contrary to the story about trump interviews in which he denied that he demanded loyalty from the Komi Republic. If the President will repeat his version under oath, he could face charges of perjury.
“Fully credible, a prepared statement Komi reinforces my belief that the President has sought to influence and even to stop the ongoing investigation of serious violations of the [Michael] Flynn and others close to the President. That’s obstruction of justice,” wrote in an email to Laurence Tribe, Professor of constitutional law at Harvard University.
According to Richard Paynter, adviser on ethics in the administration of George Bush, we need more evidence to say with certainty that trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.
“The key question is whether there was a threat of dismissal Komi, if he had not done what he said”, — said the painter. “I think that the request of loyalty as a condition of employment, the time when he asked him to abandon the investigation into Flynn’s and the fact that it really fired — these three factors together are conclusive evidence that trump Komi said that if he did not leave the investigation, you will be fired.”
“Another question is, is this enough to convince a jury”, he added. “A lot will depend on whether there were other witnesses who, say, heard, trump said, “I’m going to fire him if he did not stop the case”, or there is a record of his words like “I will fire you if you don’t do it” — that would be direct evidence. But of course there is enough evidence to the judiciary committees of the house of representatives and the Senate began to hold hearings and call witnesses.”
Probably the Komi will ask questions about the context of conversations with trump, when former FBI Director will give oral evidence on Thursday morning.
“Of course, the head of the FBI Komi waits for the next day after the hearing, when he may have to talk about it,” said CNN Norman Eisen, the other a former adviser to the ethics of the White house. “Whether obstruction, impeachment, or something else.”
He compared the testimony of Komi with secret recordings of telephone calls Richard Nixon when he was at his post in the midst of the Watergate scandal.
“That brings us back to the same reality, and the obstruction of Nixon, maybe even worse,” he said. “This is the equivalent of the records of Nixon. We’re going to very, very troubled water.”
“The pressure of the Komi Republic, could become an obstacle to justice, depending on intent and motive,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat from Connecticut. Answering a question from The Guardian about what Komi has to say on Thursday, Blumenthal said, “What else did the President say? And what was the tone and clear intention in his statement?”
Benjamin Witts, editor of the influential Lawfare blog and senior fellow for research in governance at the Brookings institution, also conducted a comparison with the era of Nixon, calling the statement “Komi the most shocking, the only official document about the performance of public duties of any President since the publication of the records of Watergate”.
“Komi here describes the behavior that a society committed to the rule of law, just can not accept in a President,” added Witts.
A friend and former adviser of Komi said that the intervention of the tramp in the investigation of Flynn’s was the “deviation from standards” and bordered “although not necessarily directly with obstruction of justice.”
“Only if we can associate with this dismissal [Komi], we can talk about retribution, and such a case of preventing it is easier to make,” said the other. On the question of how did Komi dismissal in retaliation, the friend, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “I don’t want to speak for him.”
Friend said that the dismissed Director of the FBI “impatiently” waiting for the opportunity to give public testimony because “he believes the American people deserve to know what happened.”
Friend added that the Komi Republic was not shaken by this story. “He’s fine. He’s fine, ‘ said the other. “He is in harmony with himself, he is always proud of the fact that doing the right thing, and he will continue to do that.”
