Looking at my Facebook feed over the last 24-48 hours I have been seeing a lot of my liberal friends salivating at the mouth about Trump being impeached over the Comey memo, among other things.
There’s a reason with this cascade of “bombshell” reports coming out over the last week that I often take a wait-and-see posture. News outlets rush to get stories out because there’s no time to gather all the facts anymore. Also, since these blockbuster revelations generate traffic why wouldn’t they hurry to release them for clicks?
One thing it leads to is a mass jumping to conclusions, and that has it’s pitfalls.
From Gregg Jarrett of Fox News, emphasis added is mine:
Three months ago, the then-FBI Director met with President Trump. Following their private conversation, Comey did what he always does –he wrote a memorandum to himself memorializing the conversation. Good lawyers do that routinely.
Now, only after Comey was fired, the memo magically surfaces in an inflammatory New York Times report which alleges that Mr. Trump asked Comey to end the Michael Flynn investigation.
Those who don’t know the first thing about the law immediately began hurling words like “obstruction of justice”, “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “impeachment“. Typically, these people don’t know what they don’t know.
The left needs to pay attention to this next part, because this is where they should realized that they should be careful what they wish for.
Here is what we do know.
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
In other words, the only thing that’s going to get impeached thanks to the Comey memo is Comey’s credibility.
But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.
It will be interesting to see if Jarrett’s Comey memo argument ends up being prologue to what is coming down the pike.