Trump under investigation for Obstruction of Justice.

[Flopper]

The Washington Post says that the Special Prosecutor is investigating Trump for Obstruction of Justice.

It's never the crime that goes these guys in. Always the coverup.

Okay...Well that the WaPo says so doesn't exactly make it be so, but it does suggest there's a better chance now than before now that it is so. Did Mueller or one of his team explicitly say that is the case? If so, well, then, it is indeed so.

If they leaked that information, whoever it is, Trump should fire them as they are no better than those they are allegedly investigating for leaks,

That's a different matter than whether Trump is under investigation for possible obstruction of justice.

I don't know the extent to which the general public has a need to know whether Trump is under investigation for possibly having obstructed justice. That is what it is, but as the information has been released, it's moot whether extant be the public's need to know that.

What I strongly believe is that many of the people -- without regard to their political affinity -- who will attempt to discount the significance of Trump's being under investigation for a felony are the same people who feel that if a liberal is under investigation for something, s/he is guilty of that for which they under investigation, and that's with regard to subjects who don't have a long track record of being shady, actually breaking laws, lying about things great and small, pretending to be someone they literally are not, etc. What will they think about this latest revelation?

I know what has always been my position in such situations, so I don't have a dissensus that compromises my integrity because of what I think about Trump as a result of his being investigated for possibly having committed a (or several) felony and what I think of others whom I knew to be under investigation for possibly having committed felonies. Of course, that only is so because I'm principled, not partisan.

For about the 10th time in this thread alone, you cannot obstruct justice if no crime is committed.

Did you forget trump's confessions?

BUT, even without trump tweeting, announcing on national v, telling Russians etc, the whole point of an Investigation is to ascertain whether a crime was committed.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The investigation started off as an investigation into Russian interference in our elections but thanks to the actions of the Orange Clown in the White House, the investigation has expanded to possible obstruction by Trump and financial crimes.

Good job, Donald. Keep it up.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

...another fake news thread on the same subject. The Russian thing didn't stick, this can't so they will go back to voter fraud.

Oh no, the COLLUSION shtick didn't find any foothold, so now the LibTards have moved onto Gambit #2: Obstruction.

Mueller is a lifelong republican first appointed by Reagan and later by H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. I doubt he takes any pleasure in opening an investigation that may end the current republican president's term in office.

Trump might well survive charges that his campaign colluded with the Russians, but not Obstruction of Justice. Unless Mueller finds no evidence of obstruction, Trump will be hurt political just as Clinton was. Republican congressmen must be questioning whether Trump is becoming more of a liability than an asset.

Let me explain this to you one more time. There has to have been a crime for an obstruction of justice charge.

Please tell me what the crime is!

You cannot have the latter without the former.

I just hope all of you libs remembered to get your fishing licenses renewed!

No, whether an investigation results in charges is immaterial. Obstruction of the investigation is a crime.

Any act that is intended to interfere with the administration of justice may constitute obstruction of justice. There are many different kinds of obstruction of justice that are covered by different federal and state statutes. For example, separate federal statutes cover obstruction of court orders, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of state and local law enforcement of gambling statutes, and tampering with or retaliating against witnesses, victims and informants.
Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under the Obstruction of Justice Statutes? A Closer Look

You still don't get it? Are you just or are you like most libs and reading comprehension is a big problem for you?

You cannot be charged with obstruction unless you actually obstruct an investigation. Since Trump has apparently done nothing to obstruct, how can that be?

Since the federal statutes would be the only one in question, why are you citing anything other than that?

 

[oreo]

Okay...Well that the WaPo says so doesn't exactly make it be so, but it does suggest there's a better chance now than before now that it is so. Did Mueller or one of his team explicitly say that is the case? If so, well, then, it is indeed so.

If they leaked that information, whoever it is, Trump should fire them as they are no better than those they are allegedly investigating for leaks,

That's a different matter than whether Trump is under investigation for possible obstruction of justice.

I don't know the extent to which the general public has a need to know whether Trump is under investigation for possibly having obstructed justice. That is what it is, but as the information has been released, it's moot whether extant be the public's need to know that.

What I strongly believe is that many of the people -- without regard to their political affinity -- who will attempt to discount the significance of Trump's being under investigation for a felony are the same people who feel that if a liberal is under investigation for something, s/he is guilty of that for which they under investigation, and that's with regard to subjects who don't have a long track record of being shady, actually breaking laws, lying about things great and small, pretending to be someone they literally are not, etc. What will they think about this latest revelation?

I know what has always been my position in such situations, so I don't have a dissensus that compromises my integrity because of what I think about Trump as a result of his being investigated for possibly having committed a (or several) felony and what I think of others whom I knew to be under investigation for possibly having committed felonies. Of course, that only is so because I'm principled, not partisan.

For about the 10th time in this thread alone, you cannot obstruct justice if no crime is committed.

Did you forget trump's confessions?

BUT, even without trump tweeting, announcing on national v, telling Russians etc, the whole point of an Investigation is to ascertain whether a crime was committed.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The investigation started off as an investigation into Russian interference in our elections but thanks to the actions of the Orange Clown in the White House, the investigation has expanded to possible obstruction by Trump and financial crimes.

Good job, Donald. Keep it up.

Trump is a walking--talking tweeting disaster. Flynn has got something on Trump. Any other President would have fired Flynn and walked away from it. Instead he tried to coherce Comey to drop the case against Flynn--met with him 3 times, and called him 6 times to complain about it--then fired him when Comey didn't do what he wanted.

Then the moron goes on NBC to give an interview and says this.

Trump said he was thinking of “this Russia thing” when he decided James Comey’s fate – contradicting the White House rationale that he fired the FBI director for mishandling the Clinton email investigation.

Comey had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Trump advisers and Russian officials when he was dismissed by the president. Defending that decision in an interview on NBC News on Thursday, Trump said: “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”
Donald Trump admits 'this Russia thing' part of reasoning for firing Comey

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Okay...Well that the WaPo says so doesn't exactly make it be so, but it does suggest there's a better chance now than before now that it is so. Did Mueller or one of his team explicitly say that is the case? If so, well, then, it is indeed so.

If they leaked that information, whoever it is, Trump should fire them as they are no better than those they are allegedly investigating for leaks,

That's a different matter than whether Trump is under investigation for possible obstruction of justice.

I don't know the extent to which the general public has a need to know whether Trump is under investigation for possibly having obstructed justice. That is what it is, but as the information has been released, it's moot whether extant be the public's need to know that.

What I strongly believe is that many of the people -- without regard to their political affinity -- who will attempt to discount the significance of Trump's being under investigation for a felony are the same people who feel that if a liberal is under investigation for something, s/he is guilty of that for which they under investigation, and that's with regard to subjects who don't have a long track record of being shady, actually breaking laws, lying about things great and small, pretending to be someone they literally are not, etc. What will they think about this latest revelation?

I know what has always been my position in such situations, so I don't have a dissensus that compromises my integrity because of what I think about Trump as a result of his being investigated for possibly having committed a (or several) felony and what I think of others whom I knew to be under investigation for possibly having committed felonies. Of course, that only is so because I'm principled, not partisan.

For about the 10th time in this thread alone, you cannot obstruct justice if no crime is committed.

Did you forget trump's confessions?

BUT, even without trump tweeting, announcing on national v, telling Russians etc, the whole point of an Investigation is to ascertain whether a crime was committed.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The investigation started off as an investigation into Russian interference in our elections but thanks to the actions of the Orange Clown in the White House, the investigation has expanded to possible obstruction by Trump and financial crimes.

Good job, Donald. Keep it up.

You are taking the word of a source that, if they posted the correct time of sunrise tomorrow, with their history of publishing falsehoods, anyone with half a brain would check other sources.

Since liberals don't qualify for that restriction, they would go with the flow!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Admiral Rockwell Tory,

For about the 10th time in this thread alone, you cannot obstruct justice if no crime is committed.

Obstruction is a deliberate attempt to intervene in an official investigation in order to prevent a crime from being discovered.

Trump admitted his crime when he told the Russians in the Oval Office that he fired Comey to take the pressure of the investigation off himself.

Trump should actually be impeached for being stupid.

 

[Faun]

The Washington Post says that the Special Prosecutor is investigating Trump for Obstruction of Justice.

It's never the crime that goes these guys in. Always the coverup.

There can't be obstruction of Justice if there is no crime. Have fun pissing up yet another rope.

I would think you all would learn a lesson the last time you were fed a mountain of poo, but you all want believe so bad that you'll believe any crap they shove up your keester.

Great, another Judge Judy.

There were crimes being investigated, namely, collusion between Trump associates and Russian hacking.

 

[oreo]

...another fake news thread on the same subject. The Russian thing didn't stick, this can't so they will go back to voter fraud.

Oh no, the COLLUSION shtick didn't find any foothold, so now the LibTards have moved onto Gambit #2: Obstruction.

Mueller is a lifelong republican first appointed by Reagan and later by H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. I doubt he takes any pleasure in opening an investigation that may end the current republican president's term in office.

Trump might well survive charges that his campaign colluded with the Russians, but not Obstruction of Justice. Unless Mueller finds no evidence of obstruction, Trump will be hurt political just as Clinton was. Republican congressmen must be questioning whether Trump is becoming more of a liability than an asset.

Let me explain this to you one more time. There has to have been a crime for an obstruction of justice charge.

Please tell me what the crime is!

You cannot have the latter without the former.

I just hope all of you libs remembered to get your fishing licenses renewed!

No, whether an investigation results in charges is immaterial. Obstruction of the investigation is a crime.

Any act that is intended to interfere with the administration of justice may constitute obstruction of justice. There are many different kinds of obstruction of justice that are covered by different federal and state statutes. For example, separate federal statutes cover obstruction of court orders, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of state and local law enforcement of gambling statutes, and tampering with or retaliating against witnesses, victims and informants.
Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under the Obstruction of Justice Statutes? A Closer Look

You still don't get it? Are you just or are you like most libs and reading comprehension is a big problem for you?

You cannot be charged with obstruction unless you actually obstruct an investigation. Since Trump has apparently done nothing to obstruct, how can that be?

Since the federal statutes would be the only one in question, why are you citing anything other than that?

Here is the definition of Obstruction of Justice.

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of obstructing prosecutors or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.
Obstruction of justice - Wikipedia

Comey testified that Trump pressured him to drop the Michael Flynn case prior to him getting fired. That is obstruction of Justice. That's why this criminal investigation has also moved into Obstruction of Justice.
http://nypost.com/2017/05/18/lindsey-graham-russia-probe-now-a-criminal-investigation/

And it doesn't help that Trump admitted Obstruction of justice during an NBC interview.
"Donald Trump said he was thinking of “this Russia thing” when he decided James Comey’s fate – contradicting the White House rationale that he fired the FBI director for mishandling the Clinton email investigation.

Comey had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Trump advisers and Russian officials when he was dismissed by the president. Defending that decision in an interview on NBC News on Thursday, Trump said: “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”
Donald Trump admits 'this Russia thing' part of reasoning for firing Comey

 

[Faun]

...another fake news thread on the same subject. The Russian thing didn't stick, this can't so they will go back to voter fraud.

Oh no, the COLLUSION shtick didn't find any foothold, so now the LibTards have moved onto Gambit #2: Obstruction.

Mueller is a lifelong republican first appointed by Reagan and later by H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. I doubt he takes any pleasure in opening an investigation that may end the current republican president's term in office.

Trump might well survive charges that his campaign colluded with the Russians, but not Obstruction of Justice. Unless Mueller finds no evidence of obstruction, Trump will be hurt political just as Clinton was. Republican congressmen must be questioning whether Trump is becoming more of a liability than an asset.

Let me explain this to you one more time. There has to have been a crime for an obstruction of justice charge.

Please tell me what the crime is!

You cannot have the latter without the former.

I just hope all of you libs remembered to get your fishing licenses renewed!

No, whether an investigation results in charges is immaterial. Obstruction of the investigation is a crime.

Any act that is intended to interfere with the administration of justice may constitute obstruction of justice. There are many different kinds of obstruction of justice that are covered by different federal and state statutes. For example, separate federal statutes cover obstruction of court orders, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of state and local law enforcement of gambling statutes, and tampering with or retaliating against witnesses, victims and informants.
Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under the Obstruction of Justice Statutes? A Closer Look

You still don't get it? Are you just or are you like most libs and reading comprehension is a big problem for you?

You cannot be charged with obstruction unless you actually obstruct an investigation. Since Trump has apparently done nothing to obstruct, how can that be?

Since the federal statutes would be the only one in question, why are you citing anything other than that?

It's your opinion that he hasn't obstructed an investigation. And you're biased. Clearly, he may have and Mueller's looking into it.

 

[Faun]

Oh no, the COLLUSION shtick didn't find any foothold, so now the LibTards have moved onto Gambit #2: Obstruction.

Mueller is a lifelong republican first appointed by Reagan and later by H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. I doubt he takes any pleasure in opening an investigation that may end the current republican president's term in office.

Trump might well survive charges that his campaign colluded with the Russians, but not Obstruction of Justice. Unless Mueller finds no evidence of obstruction, Trump will be hurt political just as Clinton was. Republican congressmen must be questioning whether Trump is becoming more of a liability than an asset.

Let me explain this to you one more time. There has to have been a crime for an obstruction of justice charge.

Please tell me what the crime is!

You cannot have the latter without the former.

I just hope all of you libs remembered to get your fishing licenses renewed!

No, whether an investigation results in charges is immaterial. Obstruction of the investigation is a crime.

Any act that is intended to interfere with the administration of justice may constitute obstruction of justice. There are many different kinds of obstruction of justice that are covered by different federal and state statutes. For example, separate federal statutes cover obstruction of court orders, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of state and local law enforcement of gambling statutes, and tampering with or retaliating against witnesses, victims and informants.
Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under the Obstruction of Justice Statutes? A Closer Look

You still don't get it? Are you just or are you like most libs and reading comprehension is a big problem for you?

You cannot be charged with obstruction unless you actually obstruct an investigation. Since Trump has apparently done nothing to obstruct, how can that be?

Since the federal statutes would be the only one in question, why are you citing anything other than that?

Here is the definition of Obstruction of Justice.

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of obstructing prosecutors or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.
Obstruction of justice - Wikipedia

Yup, nothing in there at all about there needing to be an underlying crime committed. Only the intent to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

So now the yahoos chanting how Trump can't be guilty of obstruction because there was no underlying crime will change their tune to -- but it wasn't obstruction anyway.

 

[oreo]

Mueller is a lifelong republican first appointed by Reagan and later by H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. I doubt he takes any pleasure in opening an investigation that may end the current republican president's term in office.

Trump might well survive charges that his campaign colluded with the Russians, but not Obstruction of Justice. Unless Mueller finds no evidence of obstruction, Trump will be hurt political just as Clinton was. Republican congressmen must be questioning whether Trump is becoming more of a liability than an asset.

Let me explain this to you one more time. There has to have been a crime for an obstruction of justice charge.

Please tell me what the crime is!

You cannot have the latter without the former.

I just hope all of you libs remembered to get your fishing licenses renewed!

No, whether an investigation results in charges is immaterial. Obstruction of the investigation is a crime.

Any act that is intended to interfere with the administration of justice may constitute obstruction of justice. There are many different kinds of obstruction of justice that are covered by different federal and state statutes. For example, separate federal statutes cover obstruction of court orders, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of state and local law enforcement of gambling statutes, and tampering with or retaliating against witnesses, victims and informants.
Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under the Obstruction of Justice Statutes? A Closer Look

You still don't get it? Are you just or are you like most libs and reading comprehension is a big problem for you?

You cannot be charged with obstruction unless you actually obstruct an investigation. Since Trump has apparently done nothing to obstruct, how can that be?

Since the federal statutes would be the only one in question, why are you citing anything other than that?

Here is the definition of Obstruction of Justice.

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The crime of obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of obstructing prosecutors or other (usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.
Obstruction of justice - Wikipedia

Yup, nothing in there at all about there needing to be an underlying crime committed. Only the intent to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

So now the yahoos chanting how Trump can't be guilty of obstruction because there was no underlying crime will change their tune to -- but it wasn't obstruction anyway.

Obstruction of Justice is the crime.
Obstruction of justice - Wikipedia

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, post: 17516850

You cannot be charged with obstruction unless you actually obstruct an investigation. Since Trump has apparently done nothing to obstruct, how can that be?

Trump has admitted that he obstructed justice. He actionably fired Comey to take the pressure of Comey's investigation off. So the idiot thought. Firing Comey was blatant obstruction of justice.it was the stupidest decision he could have made if he is so certain he has committed no crime.

Suspicious financial transactions are part of the investigation as well. Trump may fear his financial crimes will be found on that road.

 

[Lakhota]

I just heard a former Watergate prosecutor (Jill Wine-Banks) say that Grand Jury testimony could be released to Congress to help facilitate/prompt impeachment proceedings - which would bring political pressure to bear on Congress if Republicans are reluctant to perform their constitutional duties.

Did they say when the Grand Jury would convene?

No. But I heard on Tuesday that there may already be one or two - and maybe more to come.

 

[JonKoch]

...another fake news thread on the same subject. The Russian thing didn't stick, this can't so they will go back to voter fraud.

Oh no, the COLLUSION shtick didn't find any foothold, so now the LibTards have moved onto Gambit #2: Obstruction.

Mueller is a lifelong republican first appointed by Reagan and later by H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. I doubt he takes any pleasure in opening an investigation that may end the current republican president's term in office.

Trump might well survive charges that his campaign colluded with the Russians, but not Obstruction of Justice. Unless Mueller finds no evidence of obstruction, Trump will be hurt political just as Clinton was. Republican congressmen must be questioning whether Trump is becoming more of a liability than an asset.

Let me explain this to you one more time. There has to have been a crime for an obstruction of justice charge.

Please tell me what the crime is!

You cannot have the latter without the former.

I just hope all of you libs remembered to get your fishing licenses renewed!

No, whether an investigation results in charges is immaterial. Obstruction of the investigation is a crime.

Any act that is intended to interfere with the administration of justice may constitute obstruction of justice. There are many different kinds of obstruction of justice that are covered by different federal and state statutes. For example, separate federal statutes cover obstruction of court orders, obstruction of criminal investigations, obstruction of state and local law enforcement of gambling statutes, and tampering with or retaliating against witnesses, victims and informants.
Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under the Obstruction of Justice Statutes? A Closer Look

You still don't get it? Are you just or are you like most libs and reading comprehension is a big problem for you?

You cannot be charged with obstruction unless you actually obstruct an investigation. Since Trump has apparently done nothing to obstruct, how can that be?

Since the federal statutes would be the only one in question, why are you citing anything other than that?

Cheeto:

“[Rosenstein] had made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”



In other words, almost immediately after firing Comey, within the following two days, President Trump made at least two statements in which he essentially admitted or more like boasted about firing Comey with the specific goal of impeding or ending the Russia probe

The WaPo Obstruction Blockbuster and the World of Hurt To Come

 

[Lakhota]

Russians must have something really, really big on Trump.

 

[Lakhota]

Trump aides may be paying legal bills for the rest of their lives.

 

[Political Junky]

Trump aides may be paying legal bills for the rest of their lives.

 

[Faun]

The one consolation from a Trump administration, which I pointed out to my wife when Trump won -- if nothing else, I expected it to be entertaining; and dayam, has it ever been.

 

[JonKoch]

Trump aides may be paying legal bills for the rest of their lives.

Report: Trump’s Private Attorney Tells White House Staff Not To Lawyer Up


President Trump’s private lawyer Marc Kasowitz has advised White House staffers—who are not his clients—not to retain their own lawyers, according to the New York Times. Kasowitz has also reportedly broken the long-standing protocol that presidents’ private attorneys operate through the White House Counsel’s office and don’t engage directly with other government employees whom they do not represent. These guidelines exist to make sure the staffers understand their rights and do not feel pressured to cooperate with their bosses’ private counsel. Kasowitz’s spokesperson told the Times these claims are “inaccurate” but refused to comment further.


As former White House attorneys have explained to TPM, Kasowitz is tasked with defending Trump personally, a job that inevitably conflicts with what is best for the White House as an institution.

Report: Trump's Private Attorney Tells White House Staff Not To Lawyer Up

 

[Lakhota]

Trump aides may be paying legal bills for the rest of their lives.

Report: Trump’s Private Attorney Tells White House Staff Not To Lawyer Up


President Trump’s private lawyer Marc Kasowitz has advised White House staffers—who are not his clients—not to retain their own lawyers, according to the New York Times. Kasowitz has also reportedly broken the long-standing protocol that presidents’ private attorneys operate through the White House Counsel’s office and don’t engage directly with other government employees whom they do not represent. These guidelines exist to make sure the staffers understand their rights and do not feel pressured to cooperate with their bosses’ private counsel. Kasowitz’s spokesperson told the Times these claims are “inaccurate” but refused to comment further.


As former White House attorneys have explained to TPM, Kasowitz is tasked with defending Trump personally, a job that inevitably conflicts with what is best for the White House as an institution.

Report: Trump's Private Attorney Tells White House Staff Not To Lawyer Up

Yes, and I also heard that may be grounds for Kasowitz's disbarment. He could also be legally liable for making such statements to Trump aides.

 

[oreo]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, post: 17516850

You cannot be charged with obstruction unless you actually obstruct an investigation. Since Trump has apparently done nothing to obstruct, how can that be?

Trump has admitted that he obstructed justice. He actionably fired Comey to take the pressure of Comey's investigation off. So the idiot thought. Firing Comey was blatant obstruction of justice.it was the stupidest decision he could have made if he is so certain he has committed no crime.

Suspicious financial transactions are part of the investigation as well. Trump may fear his financial crimes will be found on that road.

Definitely--Trump's intent was to fire Comey and select another FBI director that would be "loyal" to him--and bury this Russian investigation.

Due to him firing Comey--and publicly attacking him via tweets and his mouth--Executive Privilege was off the table and Comey was able to testify what Trump had told him. Comey got what he wanted by releasing the memo's a (special prosecutor)--Robert Mueller who cannot be threatened or intimidated by his job title, and or bought off.

I imagine Trump regrets the day that he fired James Comey. Now Mueller has decided to add another criminal investigation to the ongoing Criminal investigation---Obstruction of Justice.
http://nypost.com/2017/05/18/lindsey-graham-russia-probe-now-a-criminal-investigation/

Now this is INTERESTING: Can Trump fire Robert Mueller?

Can President Donald Trump dismiss special counsel Robert Mueller, who is appointed to lead the FBI investigation into Russia's potential ties to the 2016 election?

Statements made by Trump's friend Christopher Ruddy set off many new questions Monday night.

Ruddy, who had been at the White House Monday, told PBS' Judy Woodruff that "I think he's considering perhaps terminating the special counsel."

"I think he's weighing that option," he said referring to Trump.

Technically, it's up to the attorney general to decide what to do with the special counsel.
"The attorney general is the one who has to fire him," said CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on "Anderson Cooper 360." "(Attorney General) Jeff Sessions is recused here, so it would be up to (Deputy Attorney General) Rod Rosenstein, who was the person who just appointed Bob Mueller a couple of weeks ago."

Sessions previously recused himself from any involvement in the Russia investigation due to his role as a prominent campaign adviser and surrogate.

So that would leave such a decision to Rosenstein, who just appointed Mueller on May 17 to oversee the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Q&A: Can Donald Trump fire Robert Mueller? - CNNPolitics.com