Flashback: If Trump Obstructed Justice With Comey, Wasn't Obama Similarly Guilty on Clinton Probe?
...if Trump's statements were tantamount to "veiled orders," did President Obama do something similar by telegraphing his 'analysis' (easily understood to be his preference) of the Clinton email matter while that probe was still ongoing? Let's recall together:
“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.” Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clinton’s email setup did in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.
While agents were still reviewing evidence, Obama announced on national television that it was his conclusion that Clinton's conduct didn't endanger US national security (a very dubious verdict, in light of revelation after revelation after revelation after revelation). The big boss in convinced this is nothing -- cough, cough -- he made clear. Adjust accordingly, he didn't explicitly add. The New York Times reported that Obama's comments upset some within the FBI, and many conservatives (including yours truly) were harshly critical of the president's apparent meddlesome pressure. We also expressed anger over reports that some DOJ officials were exerting pressure to "stand down" on Clinton-related proves, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch (who'd supposedly quasi-recused herself from the decision-making process on these matters) urged Comey not to disclose his re-opened investigation to Congress in October. Obama and company wanted Hillary Clinton to be the next president. The former president literally broadcast his assertion that her gross negligence wasn't that serious, and subordinates allegedly worked behind the scenes to limit the scope of the FBI investigation's political damage to Clinton. Does that all add up to obstruction? If not, why not?
I see two differences: (1) Obama was asked about Clinton's situation in a public setting and gave an answer. Trump, by contrast, allegedly made a private, one-on-one appeal directly to the man in charge of the Flynn probe, after asking that the room be cleared. (2) Trump didn't get his way, and fired Comey. We don't know if those two facts were related, but they both exist. Obama did get his way, so there's no way of knowing how he'd have reacted if Comey had followed the statute and evidence by recommending criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton. I'm not sure whether these distinctions matter in a legal sense, but they're worth mentioning either way. McCarthy's point on Obama's conduct vs. Trump's alleged conduct isn't an 'apples-to-apples' comparison; but it may not be so different as to be 'apples-to-oranges' either. The purpose of highlighting this contrast is not mindless 'whataboutism,' which I cautioned against just yesterday. It's to highlight the tricky standards when it comes to actionable proof of obstruction of justice based on controversial or questionable presidential conduct.
...if Trump's statements were tantamount to "veiled orders," did President Obama do something similar by telegraphing his 'analysis' (easily understood to be his preference) of the Clinton email matter while that probe was still ongoing? Let's recall together:
“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.” Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Mrs. Clinton’s email setup did in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.
While agents were still reviewing evidence, Obama announced on national television that it was his conclusion that Clinton's conduct didn't endanger US national security (a very dubious verdict, in light of revelation after revelation after revelation after revelation). The big boss in convinced this is nothing -- cough, cough -- he made clear. Adjust accordingly, he didn't explicitly add. The New York Times reported that Obama's comments upset some within the FBI, and many conservatives (including yours truly) were harshly critical of the president's apparent meddlesome pressure. We also expressed anger over reports that some DOJ officials were exerting pressure to "stand down" on Clinton-related proves, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch (who'd supposedly quasi-recused herself from the decision-making process on these matters) urged Comey not to disclose his re-opened investigation to Congress in October. Obama and company wanted Hillary Clinton to be the next president. The former president literally broadcast his assertion that her gross negligence wasn't that serious, and subordinates allegedly worked behind the scenes to limit the scope of the FBI investigation's political damage to Clinton. Does that all add up to obstruction? If not, why not?
I see two differences: (1) Obama was asked about Clinton's situation in a public setting and gave an answer. Trump, by contrast, allegedly made a private, one-on-one appeal directly to the man in charge of the Flynn probe, after asking that the room be cleared. (2) Trump didn't get his way, and fired Comey. We don't know if those two facts were related, but they both exist. Obama did get his way, so there's no way of knowing how he'd have reacted if Comey had followed the statute and evidence by recommending criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton. I'm not sure whether these distinctions matter in a legal sense, but they're worth mentioning either way. McCarthy's point on Obama's conduct vs. Trump's alleged conduct isn't an 'apples-to-apples' comparison; but it may not be so different as to be 'apples-to-oranges' either. The purpose of highlighting this contrast is not mindless 'whataboutism,' which I cautioned against just yesterday. It's to highlight the tricky standards when it comes to actionable proof of obstruction of justice based on controversial or questionable presidential conduct.