Published by compdiskinc on June 12, 2017

Enough evidence to start obstruction of justice case against Donald Trump: Preet Bharara

Enough evidence to start obstruction of justice case against Donald Trump: Preet Bharara

WASHINGTON: Former US Attorney Preet Bharara said there was insufficient evidence to file a case against President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice over his alleged interference in the Russian spacecraft.
Bharara also claimed that before firing him, Trump tried to cultivate relationships with him and that the model was similar to the Jamesacker Comed.
Bharara was one of 45 lawyers who were asked to resign earlier this year by the Trump administration.
“I think there’s absolutely no evidence to start a case (against Trump). I think it’s very important for all sorts of law-box speculators to be clear now that no one knows if there’s a case of demonstrable obstruction,” said Bharara ABC News .
“It’s also true that I think about it, to what I consider a third party out of government, there is no reason to say there is no obstruction” a- he said in his first television interview after being fired by Trump.
Bharara said at that time, whether the president had or did not have the power to do or to investigate, he actually receives.
“It’s a little silly for me. The fact that you have the power to remove someone from the office does not automatically permeate the criminal liability law,” said the 48-year-old lawyer.
“And I’m going to give you an example of something in a different context. If this were to become true, and everything was made for the plot … Michael Flynn offered a million dollars to Donald Trump and said I’m going to give you that Million dollars and I thank them because I want you to kick Jim Comey, then Donald Trump fired Jim Comey, everyone accepts that he has absolute authority and power, would be to open and close a federal criminal case, “Bharara said.
So the argument that we continue to listen on television shows that the mere fact that the President can fire a public employee is not going to solve the problem, said the former senior prosecutor.
Launched on Comey defense, Bharara said nothing in the note or in the conversations the FBI chief had shot with his friend at Columbia Law School was classified.
“Secondly, I do not understand what the privilege point is. You know, the president of the team, was fully aware that the note would be discussed and that the talks were discussed at the hearing and had the opportunity when many journalists have asked If they invoke the executive to try to prevent some of them from talking and they denied this opportunity, “he pointed out.

“The main point that people should focus on, as far as I can see is that you have been uncontrolled to someone who was juryed that at least once the president of the United States generates a room of his vice president and his attorney general , And told his FBI director that he should file a lawsuit against his former national security adviser first and whether or not a criminal act is serious.
This is a very serious matter if people think that the president of the United States can say to law enforcement leaders, according to their own whim or their own personal preferences or friendships, should or should do not pursue criminal cases Against specific people, he said.
Speaking of Trump’s attempt to cultivate a relationship with him, Bharara said it was “unusual phone calls” and reading the stories of how the President contacted Comey eventually would feel deja vu.
“And I’m not the director of the FBI, but I was the main federal law enforcement agent in Manhattan with jurisdiction over many things, including, you know, business interests and other things in New York,” Bharara said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published / Required fields are marked *