Rowan Scarborough; The Washington Times:

What caused the Barack Obama administration to begin investigating the Donald Trump campaign last summer has come into clearer focus following a string of congressional hearings on Russian interference in the presidential election.

It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama’s, who provided the information — what he termed the “basis” — for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer. Mr. Brennan served on the former president’s 2008 presidential campaign and in his White House.

Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians. Mr. Brennan did not name either the Russians or the Trump people. He indicated he did not know what was said.

But he said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from then-FBI director James B. Comey.

The FBI probe of contacts came the same month the intelligence community fingered Russian agents as orchestrating hacks into Democratic Party computers and providing stolen emails to WikiLeaks.

Mr. Brennan, who has not hidden his dislike for Mr. Trump, testified he briefed the investigation’s progress to Mr. Obama, who at the time was trying to aid Hillary Clinton in her campaign against the Republican nominee.

To read rest of article visit The Washington Times.

Despite Many Seeking Obstruction of Justice Charges Against President Trump, The Facts and Letter of the Law Clear His Name

By John Harris; OpsLens:

In order to make bold claims that someone broke the law, individuals must first actually understand the law and facts surrounding the case…

Political pundits, some politicians, and the media are trying to make the case that President Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.  The legal definition of obstruction of justice under the Federal statutes is expansive.  The part of the statute that applies in this instance is the following:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.

It is important to look at the requirements for “corruptly persuades.”  The term “corruptly persuades” does not include conduct which would be misleading conduct, but for lack of a state of mind.

As used in section 1505 of the statute, the term “corruptly” means: acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.

There is an omnibus statute that also deals with obstruction of justice. The courts often observe that to convict under this omnibus or “catchall” provision, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) that there was a pending judicial proceeding and,

(2) that the defendant knew this proceeding was pending and,

(3) that the defendant then corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.

To read rest of article visit OpsLens.