Professor Jed Shugerman was quoted in Business Insider about ex-FBI Chief James Comey’s congressional testimony.
Jed Shugerman, a Fordham law professor, told Business Insider in an email that Republicans’ claims in the aftermath of the Comey hearing were “not good-faith arguments” based on the testimony. He called many of them “talking points” that were “pre-circulated” beforehand “based on a strategy of isolating the most favorable facts and events, and ignoring other events and the big picture.”
But, he said, the “pro-impeachment side does not have a slam dunk today, either.”
“No event in Comey’s written testimony — and not even all of those conversations together — constitutes a clear case of obstruction,” he said. “The obstruction case is based on the act of firing Comey after all of these events and interventions. Comey’s testimony is very helpful for establishing intent to obstruct and impede, but Trump himself already offered enough evidence of intent when he connected Comey’s firing with his purpose to impede the Russia investigation.”
…
Shugerman added that Trump defenders’ argument that Comey confirmed Trump was not under investigation before Comey’s dismissal “is meaningless.”
“It’s a bit like a thief telling the prosecutor he was not under investigation for murder, and it turns out he was not under investigation for murder,” he said. “It’s the confirmation of an irrelevant fact, and it’s noise to sound like they are confirming Trump’s story.”
For Shugerman, the biggest takeaway from the hearing was how “serious” he thought Republicans on the committee were in “asking tough, but fair questions” and “respectfully giving Comey a full chance to answer.”
…
Shugerman acknowledged that the Lynch revelation had become “a real subject to investigate further,” calling the apparent pressuring of Comey to use “matter” instead of “investigation” a “huge mistake” and “a partisan intrusion” on Lynch’s part.