Latest, News, Video

Kenneth Starr destroys CNN’s claim that President Trump obstructed justice (Video)

Fake news CNN gets a lesson in what 'obstruction of justice' means.

Now that the witch hunt against President Trump has shifted from Russian election hacking, to Russian election meddling, to Russian democracy bombs, to obstruction of justice…CNN hosted Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel appointed to investigate Bill Clinton’s many scandals.

Starr of course was at the center of the Monica Lewinsky case, which eventually lead to Clinton’s impeachment., but not removal from the office of President.

CNN…

“Do you think there is a case there?”

Starr replied…

“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.”

Not satisfied with Starr’s first answer, CNN pressed on with the obstruction of justice fake news, for which Starr shut the entire debate down…

“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.”

Zerohedge adds

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?

Previous ArticleNext Article
Alex Christoforou
Writer and director forThe Duran - Living the dream in Moscow.

Follow me:Facebook Twitter Blankchat