Ken Starr Bursts CNN’s Bubble; “No Obstruction Case Against Trump From What I’ve Seen”

Donate

Originally appeared at ZeroHedge

With the ‘Russian collusion’ case against the Trump administration all but dead, the mainstream media has shifted their full attention to now building an obstruction of justice case against the White House.  As such, CNN hosted Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel appointed in the 90’s to look into various Clinton scandals, including the Vince Foster death and Monica Lewinsky episode, this morning to get his thoughts on the topic.

CNN:  “Do you think there is a case there?”

Starr:  “It’s too soon to tell. From what I’ve seen — and of course we don’t know a whole lot — the answer is no.  But it is going to be investigated and so we will soon know.”

“Obstruction of justice is really a very hard crime to make out.  It’s not just you want the investigation to go away, you suggest that the investigation goes away.  You’ve got to take really affirmative action and Director Comey said in his testimony that even though the expression was hope, he took it as a directive.”

“But what we know is, he didn’t do anything about it, right? That is that he did not dismiss the investigation or curtail the investigation. There’s an expression of hope, so it becomes an interpretation.”

Of course, the incredulous CNN anchor was simply unwilling to accept that Trump may be innocent of high crimes and pressed further by asking whether Comey would have had to ‘obey’ Trump’s suggestion to drop the Flynn investigation in order to be guilty of obstruction.

Starr:  “We’re going to the intent of what is it that the President had in mind?  He was expressing, his literal language was ‘hope.’  And, I think that redounds to the benefit of the President.  That to me, just the language, is far removed from a directive.”

“My point is, the Director of the FBI then didn’t act on that.  He rather just continued as before and reported and memorialized it.  But he did not then say, ‘ok, ladies and gentlemen of the FBI, we’re getting rid of this investigation at the direction of the President.”

And, while CNN aired the most ‘convenient’ 10 seconds of Comey’s testimony, they failed to mention the following interaction from earlier in which Comey confirmed under oath that he’d never been asked to end an investigation for political purposes. 

He also said that any efforts to do so would be a “big deal.”  Therefore, to Ken Starr’s point, if Comey interpreted Trump’s comment on Flynn as a ‘directive’ then shouldn’t that have qualified as “a big deal” that he should have elevated immediately?

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • chris chuba

    I’m not a lawyer but doesn’t the lack of an original crime have to come into play as well?

    Let’s suppose that there is and never was an original crime. According to the CNN types, they are claiming that subordinates of the Executive branch of govt have a right to insinuate wrongdoing under the cover of a never ending investigation for political reasons. Doesn’t the President, sensing incompetence, or worse, have the right to replace personnel under these circumstances for the offices he runs? I am talking about the specific case where there is a lack of an original crime.

    It just doesn’t seem right to create a fictitious crime and then wait for the subject of an investigation to crack under pressure and then say ‘AHA!, He TWITCHED!’ I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know if there is any principle that covers this case.

    • John Whitehot

      I’m not sure.
      It could be that they actually are using this as in fact there was no original crime.

      How?
      imho it could be that, crime or not, there is an investigation, so if you, as a president, try to curtail it, you commit an obstruction of justice.
      I’m no lawyer either, but anyway it doesn’t seem to me that they have a real case, and they are trying to make a lot of noise.
      MsM were today saying that “it’s the same accusation that made Nixon resign”.
      Yeah, but Nixon was as guilty as a shit in the bed.

      Moreover, it could also well be that Trump is getting lots of pressure on perhaps accepting some agenda of some lobby, and maybe they promised him to ease up the inquiries if he accepts it.
      In any case, we are assisting at a shameful display of one part of the US politics and deep politics putting up a neverending effort at toppling the candidate who beaten their protege at the elections. To them, the fact that the US people decided this, isn’t worth shit. To them, the fact that they are paralyzing any real policy making since months isn’t worth shit.

      Think about how much they care about the people and the country.

    • Alex Black

      Actually obstruction is an original crime. This entire controversy is ridiculous as no obstruction occurred, but it gives the fucktard democrats something new to talk about on CNN.

  • Carol Davidek-Waller

    The discredited former independent independent investigator (anti Clinton bloodhound) who set the bar for abuse of power opinion is important because?

    • Alex Black

      Because he is a lawyer, an expert in the field. He is giving his legal opinion. Are you a lawyer? If you are not an expert in the subject matter, no one solicits your opinion.

      • Carol Davidek-Waller

        You don’t need to be a lawyer to know not to ask/publish opinions of corrupt individuals. That’s a lot like propaganda.
        Troll much Alex.

        • Alex Black

          You dont need to be a lawyer to have an opinion, its just that on legal matters your opinion is worthless. Similarly, you can have opinion on designing your own aircraft, but i wouldn’t fly on it.

  • John

    eh, they got nothin’.

  • RichardD

    What needs to be investigated is Israeli and Jewish interference in the US political process. These people are way over involved in the US government to the detriment of the American people. There should be laws passed to get these parasites out of our media, financial and political process.