Obama Ethics Lawyer: Trump Alluding To Taped Conversations Was Witness Intimidation Against Comey

Matt Vespa
|
Posted: Jun 23, 2017 12:57 PM
Obama Ethics Lawyer: Trump Alluding To Taped Conversations Was Witness Intimidation Against Comey

When liberal constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz said that liberals were stretching criminal statutes to create an aura of illegality that can engulf the Trump presidency, you can see that with former President Obama’s ethics lawyer, who said Trump’s tweets about possibly having taped conversations between himself and James Comey, was a threat. President Trump fired Mr. Comey, who was then FBI director, tweeting that he better hope there are no tapes of their conversations (via the Hill):

 Norm Eisen, the former White House ethics czar for President Barack Obama, argued on Thursday that President Trump’s admission to not possessing tapes of conversations with former FBI Director James Comey amounts to witness intimidation.

“This lie increases Trump's legal exposure for obstruction and witness intimidation—more evidence of corrupt intent @Susan_Hennessey,” Eisen wrote on Twitter, copying Susan Hennessey, the managing editor of the Lawfare blog.

Trump, after firing Comey in May, said the former bureau director “better hope” there were not any “tapes” of their conversations.

“James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Trump said on May 12.

A threat? Really? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that the president seems to have intimidated Mr. Comey with this so-called threat and doesn’t believe Trump when he said there were no tapes. The Secret Service also said the same thing; there are no Trump tapes, but didn’t rule out another party making them. Mr. Comey was intimidated? The same guy who drafted memos that detailed his key meetings with Trump, who then gave them to a friend to leak to The New York Times? The Left coveted the memos because they noted how the president acted improperly concerning influencing an ongoing investigation centering on his former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who is under the microscope for his ties to Russia. Why would the president do this asked Schiff? Because he’s screwing with you man. There is still no evidence of collusion with the Russians. There is no direct evidence of obstruction of justice. If Comey was intimidated, why did he willingly leak those memos in the hopes of a special counsel? Trump’s tweets weren’t enough to keep his mouth shut—and his actions clearly show that he was not intimidated in the slightest. Yet, most importantly, we don’t know if Trump is under investigation for obstruction. All of that was based on a Washington Post story, a paper that doesn’t print the truth, but what they’re told, or at least that’s what their iconic editor Ben Bradlee said about it.

Comey was intimidated by Donald Trump’s tweets? Does James Comey even have Twitter? Does he even care? I think he has better things to do and he certainly did when he was FBI director. This is becoming a bigger clown show by the day.