I'm having a hard time finding a response. But I don't see any malicious intentions or acts of obstruction. Though, I can understand how those situations are unnerving for a goal of remaining independent.
Additionally, his insistence on "loyalty" is terrifying to me. As soon as the FBI isn't independent, parties will be involved in the judicial process.
In short, Trump lacks tact and isn't a skilled politician. I think we knew these things.
Where this is going to bite him is adding more "acting suspiciously" wood on the woodpile, should Democrats win a majority and move to impeach on the basis of some other spark. Nixon probably wouldn't have been impeached over Watergate if there hadn't been a pattern of behavior.
The loyalty part is worrying, agreed. But I don't see any actions to obstruct investigations.
I don't think I'd agree firing the director impaired the investigation.
Isn't that the definition of plausible deniability?
But no, being vague in your implications is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Laws are evaluated by humans who are adept at seeing through bullshit, not computers.
While being vague is not a get out of jail free card, it's demonstrably easier to defend a vague statement than a concrete one.
It is, I agree. However, when the speaker—in this case Trump—behaves as if the coyly hinted at meaning was correct, then there's no room left to hide behind "oh but that's not what I meant". In Trump's statement was a strongly implied—yet unstated—threat: If you don't drop this investigation, then you'll lose your job. And what happened? When it became clear that Comey wasn't dropping the investigation, he lost his job. Trump has no wiggle room in claiming an alternate meaning, because the clearly implied meaning was what he did.
You're walking down the street at night. You pass a man, who calls out to you. You notice that he's got a gun in his front pocket. While he places his hand on the gun, he tells you that he really could use some money, whatever you have on you. Which you proceed to give him.
Did you get mugged? Or did you instead give $200 and your phone to your new best friend?
You don't see anything malicious about a sitting President making repeated asks to an FBI director to end various investigations concerning possibly illegal activities that he or his associates may have committed? ?
Such as firing the FBI official who refused to comply...
The firing is a valid concern. But directors have been fired before. Could be many reasons.
Trump stated it was due to the Russia investigation in the CNN interview the next day.
And whether or not it harmed the investigation is irrelevant, the question is whether the intent was to harm the investigation. So given that
1. Trump asks comey to stop the investigation 2. Comey doesn't 3. Trump fires Comey 4. Trump claims that Comey was fired because of the russia/flynn investigation
I don't see how you can read this any other way.
1. Trump asks Comey to stop the investigation because it's creating bad press and is undermining the goals of his administration
2. Comey doesn't
3. Trump fires Comey for disloyalty and for allowing what Trump sees as a distraction to worsen, not because he believes the firing will somehow end the investigation.
4. What you said, though specifically because Comey's actions showed disloyalty and created problems for administration vs an effort to deliberately "obstruct justice"