After a review of the same intelligence reports brought to light by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal, multiple sources in both parties tell CNN.
Their private assessment contradicts President Donald Trump’s allegations that former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice broke the law by requesting the “unmasking” of US individuals’ identities. Trump had claimed the matter was a “massive story.”
Let’s say if court finds that a witness made false statement, and if it is established that it was intentional, in the best case scenario this witness will be dismissed and all of his statements either disregarded or re-examined. But it is also possible that he or she could face legal consequences as the witness was under oath at the time when false statement was made.
I am not an expert in American Law. However, I would like to know why implementation of the legal requirement to say truth and nothing but the truth while a person is under oath is different when it comes to the President of the United States?
I am not saying that the President shall continuously tell the world nothing but the truth. It would be not possible. I am also clear that the nature of issues of the national security requires the President to set priorities right and not disclose facts to public because it may lead to a wide range of consequences. In this case, decision to keep certain things confidential and avoid the disclosure would be perfectly legal because the President’s job is to protect the nation.
What I would like to understand, why until now there was nothing done about a few public statements of Donald Trump regarding other individuals (i.e. about Barack Obama and Susan Rice). These statements don’t have anything to do with issues of national security.
As we continue to learn from published reports, investigations were conducted and findings highlight that the statements made by Donal Trump cannot be substantiated by factual evidence.
So. I would think that it should qualify Donald Trump’s previously made statements on Barack Obama and Susan Rice as false. And since there is no indication that Trump was genuinely mislead, I also can conclude that it was intentional.
Actually, I can see potential motive. It is possible that Donald Trump could make these statements with intention to destruct the public and resources of relevant agencies that are in the process of another investigation. The one which has a number of leads indicating that a foreign power might have influenced the outcome of 2016 presidential elections.
As far as I understand, the President of the United States is under oath for a period from inauguration untill the date when his or her term legally expires.
Since at least two confirmed false statements are in place and there are so many other circumstantial evidence flying around, logically I would think that even before Russian investigation is finalised and regardless of its outcome the impeachment should have started yesterday.
Donald Trump supposed to be impeached by now due to compromised credibility and, therefore, severe potential consequences for the entire nation and the world should he remains in power. What is not clear to me is why he is still in power?