Comey Memo Sparks Trump Impeachment Talks (Audio)

go unchecked. The president is not above the law. The latest bombshell was yesterday's report that former FBI Director James Coomy documented in a memo that Trump asked him at an Oval Office meeting to shut down the investigation into

former National Security Director Michael Flynn. The White House has denied Komby's version of events that followed monday shocking disclosure that the President revealed classified information in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister's Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kisleyak, and Trump's admission last Thursday that he fired Coomy over the quote made up story about him in Russia, followed by a failed threat in a tweet the next day that

comey better hope that there are no tapes of our conversations. Did Trump commit a crime or an impeachable offense or neither joining me? Are Richard Painter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush and Bradley Moss, partner at Mark Z. Many people are questioning whether Trump's actions constituted obstruction of justice. But there's a distinction between the criminal offense of obstruction of

justice and the impeachable offense of obstruction of justice. Mark, Let's start with the criminal offense. Do his actions make out a case for obstruction under federal criminal statutes? Richard, Yes, I think that there is substantial evidence of criminal obstruction of joice. I believe that they investigated by an independent special prosecutor, as well as by the House and the

Senate Judiciary competty um. But the memo documented conversation that in and of itself probably would not arise to criminal obstruction of justice. But we put that in the context as the President asking the FBI director to affirm his

loyalty to the president. The fact that the FBI director was fired, and that the President has acknowledged that his firing of the FBI director was connected to the Russia investigation, and then the fact that General Flynn was going to turn state's evidence in the fact asked for a immunity prosecution in return for his testimony, which would of course give everyone connected with a Trump Russia scandal a motive

to want to shut down the plant investigation. We put all these facts together, and I think there is what I would characterize a strong evidence. It's a president and in criminal um obstruction of justice, but it's it's certainly not moping and shot chic at all. It needs to

investigate further. And Bradley, do you agree with that? Yeah, by and large, I mean I think that the evidence we've gotten right now is very strong, circumstantial evidence for at least the impeachment charge of a structal justice UH to to supplement what Richard was saying in terms of

the criminal side. The one thing that might save the president, which is a legal nuance a highly doubt he actually is aware of, is that, as far as the criminal courts have typically been concerned in a pending FBI investigation in and of itself would not qualify as the type of proceeding that would implicate any of the obstruction of

justice criminal provisions under the US Code. So it's a slightly a loophole which just by happenstance would possibly save the president from a criminal charge if that was ever feasible, But in an impeachment context, he wouldn't be quite as limited. I think we do have some good circumstantial evidence. I don't believe all the pieces have quite moved into place yet, though. Impeachment is a different kind of standard, and the Constitution

uses the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors. So, Richard, just in thirty seconds we will continue with this. But in thirty seconds is the case easier to make out an obstruction of justice claim under an impeachment standard? Well, of course, impeachment is a very political process. That in Congress has impeached the president for lying under oath about his text life.

I couldn't give a rap behind about present sex life, but I don't care about the Russians in Russian esta by the United States, Russian agents so working in the NAST Security Council and so forth. Uh so, Um, that's going to be up to Congress to determine whether there's been obstruction of justice or whether there's been other invatuable offenses that whether to remove the president. Uh, you know, the thought process obstruction of justice was the main charge

in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment cases. The Constitution uses the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors, and they include corruption, abuse of power, and undermining the rule of law and democracy. Many people are questioning whether President Donald Trump's actions constituted obstruction of justice, and we've been talking about that with Richard Painter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and former ethics lawyer for George W. Bush and Bradley Moss,

partner at Mark Z Bradley. Let's talk about obstruction of justice in the context of the information we learned about the meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey love Rob and Ambassador kisleyak Um. Although it was it has been said many times that President Trump has the ability to declassify information on the spot, how do you view that, Well, No, it's very true that under Article to Authority, the president can do pretty much whatever he wants with classified information.

All classified information and all the procedures for deeming something classified emanate from the presidency, and every president has that authority. So the president couldn't theory post the nuclear launch codes if you wanted on Twitter, and there would be no criminal provision to take action against him, but there would be a basis to impeach him for abuse of a far sorry, for abusive power and failure to faithfully execute

his office. And that's kind of what we have here, is that, yes, as a criminal matter, the president could share whatever he wanted with the Russian officials in the Oval Office, but from the context of his position and improperly executing his duties to share such sensitive details which have been provided only on condition of confidentiality from an intelligence partner, which put the asset at risk, which had not been coordinated with other agencies to make sure all

proper procedures were followed first, to just off the cuff describe that information to the Russian officials could in and of itself be viewed as a basis for impeachment. But if we ever get to that point, I don't necessarily think we're emnestly and convinced we're there yet. But if we ever do get to that point, I think that'll be icing on the cake. If this president gets impeached, it's not going to be what happened with the Russians

in the Oval Office. Richard. It does seem like impeachment is if at all, a long way away, considering that both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans. So what would be the next step the Special Council, Independent Commissions, Lect Congressional Committee. What would you see as the best

next step? Well, I think that there is going to need to see an investigation continue investigation of the Russia uh A connection by the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the Republicans are going to have to very forcefully supportment investigation. The Republican Party has never in its history foot for shielding Russian agents and Russian espionage inside the United States and other subbursive activities they've been really going on.

The Russian has been doing this since the nineteen seventeen Russian Revolution, trying to destabilize Western democracies. We just thought Gramps this last week. I don't think the Republicans are going to tolerate that, and those investigations are gonna pursued, and then we're gonna have investigations in the House, the Senate History Committee on the question of abuse of power.

And I went to Gown. I think Republicans will uh come around on this, you know, remembering that even with the next debacle of the Republican Party came back very strong and Kenadie with election of Ronald Reagan. But participating and cover up it's certainly not the interest of of anybody in the Republican Party or anyone in Congress. So hopefully we're gonna be able to move forward on this.

But it's a very serious situation because unlike water Gate, which was really a third rate burglary um, you know, but it's purely domestic, this involved the Russian UH aspying inside the United States and attempt to be stablized our government. That's a very dangerous situation. Now, do we expect Bradley to see James Comey anytime soon testifying in in Congress

in the open? I believe, I know, I know that there's already been a request I think it was just made earlier this uh this morning or this afternoon for him to come back, and also Senate Intelligence or Senate Judiciary that want him to testify an open and closed classified session. I think that is very much warranted at

this point. I think, given all that's already leaked out, and given these various stories now about the memoranda that he was drafting documenting the conversations with the President that were raising concerns for him that we need to have

some clarity on the situation. And it's it's it's more or less about time that he comes back we get some certainty as to what exactly happened, why he didn't raise this earlier, why he had what he one of the conversations he had with the president, and what else

he was concerned about, if anything. And Richard, let's talk about an FBI memo and the weight that an FBI memo carries that what about the FBI memo that an FBI memo in criminal proceedings even carries a great deal of weight, and a memo made almost contemporaneously with a discussion by an FBI up person or questioning, Well, the question is what happened in the conversation And at the end of the day, the question is gonna say, was the President UH seeking to intimidate the FBI and trying

to threaten UH, were actually threatening Director Comey with being fired if he did not UH put ustop to the point investigation and tamper down the Russia investigation. UH. The evidence points in the direction of that, indeed being the case, the question isn't the mamo the mamos the evidence. The question is did the President seek to impede the FBI investigation by threatening to fire the FBI director if he

did not put us out to the point investigation. I want to thank both of you for being on Bloomberg Law. That's Richard Painter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Bradley Moss, partner at Mark's Aid. Coming up on Bloomberg Law. We're going to go back in history to look at the parallels between Komi's memo and the smoking gun that took present Richard Nixon down. I am June Grosso. You're listening to Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg