While testifying before the Senate on Thursday, Former FBI Director James Comey faced questions seeking to determine whether or not President Donald Trump’s actions amount to obstruction of justice.

The debate first began on Wednesday when Comey’s prepared opening statement was released to the public. The statement recounts conversations with the president in which he pressed for Comey’s loyalty, distanced himself from an unconfirmed dossier, and assured the director that former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was a “good guy” that “has been through a lot.”

But the standout moment came later on in a conversation between Comey and President Trump. Comey noted in his statement:

[Trump] then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ I did not say I would ‘let this go.’

While many speculated on the subject, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided it would be best to ask Comey himself. Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) was the first to ask if the president obstructed justice, but the former FBI director would not weigh in on the subject, only noting that he found Trump’s comments to be “disturbing.”

“There was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with the Russian contacts and the contacts themselves,” Comey said. “And so that was my assessment at the time. I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct.”

Senator James Risch (R-ID) expanded on the chairman’s questions and asked whether Trump had explicitly “ordered” or “directed” Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. Comey responded that he understood the president’s statement to be an order, but that Trump had used the words, “I hope.”

The senator continued to probe about the semantics.

“He said, ‘I hope.’ You don’t know of anyone who’s ever been charged [with obstruction of justice] for hoping something. Is that a fair statement?” asked Risch. “I don’t as I sit here,” replied Comey with a shrug.

Sen. James Risch asks Comey about obstruction of justice

Watch live here: https://t.co/THlNhXekzk pic.twitter.com/REs7GfdKNY

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 8, 2017

Senator Risch is a strong supporter of the Trump Administration. He is on the record saying that the president was right, and even entitled, to share classified information with Russian officials in the Oval Office. He also agrees with the president that the ongoing leaks to the news media are a cause for concern. It’s likely that he saw Comey’s responses to his line of questioning as a victory and proof that Trump did not obstruct justice.

However, Senator Risch’s questioning implies that an obstruction of justice charge requires an explicit order from the accused, which may not be the case given the fairly broad federal statutes in place. There are several relevant statutes to this situation, which may implicate anyone who “corruptly […] endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law.” So asking Comey to drop part of an investigation, and later firing him, could meet these requirements, particularly when you consider the power dynamic between an FBI director and president.

Samuel Buell, a criminal law professor at Duke University and former federal prosecutor who led the Justice Department’s Enron task force, told the New York Times that the case against Trump has only grown over time.

“The evidence of improper purpose has gotten much stronger since the day of Comey’s firing,” Buell said. “Trump has made admissions about that. And we now have evidence that he may have indicated an improper purpose previously in his communications with Comey about the Russia investigation.”

Of course, Trump did have the legal authority to fire Comey. In fact, the former director even noted in his testimony that he was aware that he could be fired at any moment for any reason at all when he first took the job. But courts have ruled that acts generally considered lawful can be illegal if they are meant to obstruct justice.

Even so, this testimony might not mean much for the immediate future. The process of impeachment is hardly swift and involves both quasi-judicial and quasi-political proceedings. Not only does the president have to have committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but a majority in the House and two-thirds of the Senate need to agree in order to impeach and remove a president from office. Also, the events surrounding this testimony, and subsequent accusations, are largely unprecedented, creating more than its fair share of uncertainty.

It should be noted, however, that two most recent American presidents subjected to impeachment proceedings–Bill Clinton in 1998, and Richard Nixon in 1974, although he resigned before the House could vote–were accused of obstruction of justice.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comey Hearing Recap: Defining Obstruction of Justice appeared first on Law Street.

The first bad omen came earlier this week, when an American official reportedly told an Israeli official that the Western Wall in Jerusalem is “not your territory.” Then, President Donald Trump, in a closed-door meeting at the White House with Russian officials, let slip classified intelligence regarding an Islamic State threat. The source of that intel: Israel, the most important ally for the U.S. in the Middle East.

As Trump embarks on a trip to the Jewish State–he arrives on Monday–it’s worth asking whether or not America’s relationship with Israel is in danger. Many top Israeli officials have already reaffirmed their country’s commitment to its partnership with the U.S. But the gaffes keep coming, and the initial honeymoon between Trump and Israel’s leading right-wing faction is slowly fading away.

When Trump was elected, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu breathed a sigh of relief. Eight years of President Barack Obama–with his insistence on freezing Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, and Netanyahu’s perception that Obama never truly grasped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict–drained the prime minister. Trump signaled a change. He was steadfast and vocal in his support for Israel. People close to him–including now-ambassador to Israel David Friedman–had life-long ties to Israel.

Pro-settler groups and lawmakers in Israel thought that Trump would provide a rubber stamp on the settlement project, which Palestinians (and many Israelis) argue is an impediment to peace. But not long after taking office, Trump told Netanyahu, during a visit to the White House, to “hold back on settlements for a bit.” Unlike Obama, Trump has not explicitly condemned settlement building, but he has not been quite the unconditional supporter of settlements many hoped he would be.

Still, the partnership has remained strong. This week has certainly been a test, however. ABC reported that the Israeli source that picked up the ISIS threat that Trump relayed to the Russians might be compromised. Some former Israeli intelligence officials, including former heads of the Mossad, Israel’s chief spy agency, said they might hesitate to share intelligence with the Trump Administration moving forward.

“I get the sense that there are certain questions indeed,” former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told the Associated Press. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman played down the episode, and reiterated Israel’s partnership with the U.S.

“The security relations between Israel and its greatest ally, the United States, are deep, significant and unprecedented in their scope and their contribution to our strength. That is how it always was and how it always will be,” he said.

All eyes will be on Trump when he visits Israel–part of the president’s first overseas trip–next Monday. His trip will include visits to Israel’s Holocaust memorial, Yad Veshem, and the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City. One of the holiest sites in Judaism, the Western Wall lies in east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, along with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Earlier this week, while preparing for Trump’s visit, an American aide told an Israeli aide the Western Wall was not a part of Israel, during a spat about Netanyahu’s request to visit the holy site with Trump, a request that was ultimately rejected. Israel considers Jerusalem its eternal capital, and Palestinians insist its eastern half would be the capital of their future state. But while the status of Jerusalem has been contended for decades, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, recently brought some clarity to the debate.

During a Tuesday press conference, when asked about the American aide’s comments in regard to the Western Wall, Spicer said the site is “clearly in Jerusalem,” a fact all sides can agree on.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is America’s Relationship with Israel in Danger? appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump is taking shots at the intelligence community and the “mainstream media,” yet again, after BuzzFeed News published a 35-page report Tuesday, containing unverified and salacious allegations about Trump’s ties to the Russian government.

The dossier in question, which was said to have been compiled by a former British intelligence officer hired by Trump’s political opponents, has reportedly been circulating among some lawmakers, journalists, and intelligence officials for months.

CNN reported Tuesday that President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump received a two-page synopsis of the opposition research last week, warning of Russia’s efforts to compromise Trump.

Buzzfeed was unable to confirm the document’s contents, but decided to publish it in full anyways “so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.”

The collection of memos allege that Russia has been “cultivating, supporting, and assisting” Trump for at least five years. It also claims that in 2013 Trump employed a number of prostitutes to perform a perverse “golden shower” display in front of him, on the same bed the Obamas slept in at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow, and that the Russian intelligence agency FSB reportedly recorded the encounter.

Critics have debated the ethics of whether or not Buzzfeed was in the right to have published the secret dossier in full, without verifying its contents. Ben Smith, Buzzfeed’s Editor-in-Chief, defended the publication’s decision, offering this explanation:

Here’s the note I sent to @buzzfeednews staff this evening pic.twitter.com/OcAloWzVzb

— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) January 11, 2017

Trump responded to the article on Twitter, with his characteristic capitalized ferocity.

FAKE NEWS – A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

He later added:

Russia just said the unverified report paid for by political opponents is “A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FABRICATION, UTTER NONSENSE.” Very unfair!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA – NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

I win an election easily, a great “movement” is verified, and crooked opponents try to belittle our victory with FAKE NEWS. A sorry state!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to “leak” into the public. One last shot at me.Are we living in Nazi Germany?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

During Trump’s first press conference as president-elect Wednesday morning, he categorically denied the document’s validity, calling it “fake news” and “phony stuff.” Trump also denied allegations that he watched a “golden shower” display at the Russian Ritz Carlton, claiming “I’m very much a germaphobe. Believe me.”

Trump did admit, however, for the first time, that Russia was behind the DNC hack. “I think it was Russia,” said Trump, before backpedaling a few minutes later to say that perhaps it was another country.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Rebukes Buzzfeed Report, Russian Ties appeared first on Law Street.

Caught up in the whirlwind of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris was an interesting little footnote: American FBI agents headed to France to assist in the investigation. The FBI going to Paris or anywhere else outside the United States may, on its face, seem like the agency is overstepping its jurisdiction. When it comes to matters outside the borders of the country most assume that the Central Intelligence Agency would be the organization involved, not the FBI, whose mandate is more domestically focused. However, as this recent example and others have shown, the FBI does, in fact, operate abroad. Read on to see what the FBI does around the globe, how its role has changed over the years, and how all this activity is perceived internationally.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation Abroad

The beginning of the FBI’s work abroad can be traced back to World War II. In 1940, as the war intensified and the prospect of the United States joining in the fight grew, President Roosevelt assigned the Federal Bureau of Investigation to handle intelligence responsibilities for the Western Hemisphere. In an era before internationally-focused agencies like the CIA existed, the FBI was given the task. This initial step centered on finding and exposing Nazi spies who were attempting to sneak into the United States from South America.

The FBI realized early on that in order to maximize its effectiveness it needed to coordinate with local authorities in other countries. Starting in Bogata, Columbia, the FBI began assigning special agents to positions that would eventually be known as Legal Attachés or “Legats.” When WWII ended, the CIA took over much of the foreign intelligence work and the FBI shifted its international focus to training and developing working relationships abroad. Since then the program has continued to expand. According to the FBI’s Legal Attaché website:

Today, we have Legal Attaché offices—commonly known as Legats—and smaller sub-offices in 75 key cities around the globe, providing coverage for more than 200 countries, territories, and islands. Each office is established through mutual agreement with the host country and is situated in the U.S. embassy or consulate in that nation.

In addition to Legat offices in foreign countries, the FBI coordinates with similar organizations overseas like Europol. The following video looks at what the FBI does abroad with a focus, in this case, on investigation:

What the FBI Does

So what does the FBI do with all these agents and other personnel stationed abroad? A major focus of the FBI’s effort abroad is training. Among other things, the FBI’s training focuses on providing information on kidnapping, fingerprinting, and corruption. As part of this exchange, the FBI also welcomes a growing number of foreign nationals to its training facility in Quantico, Virginia.

In addition to training, the FBI assists with investigations in other countries. In the most recent example, the terrorist attacks in Paris, the FBI sent agents with particular expertise. According to the New York Times, the agents sent by the FBI have skills that focus on recovering data from electronic devices. The agents will help assist French police recover intelligence about the attackers and provide any information about U.S. security interests back to the United States. The FBI conducted a similar operation in Uganda in 2010. In that investigation, a large contingent of FBI agents were sent to the African nation to investigate the terrorist attacks and aid in identifying potential suspects.

In order to understand the FBI’s role abroad, it is important to look at how the bureau changed in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001. After the attacks, the FBI moved away from its traditional role of investigating domestic crime to a new focus on counterterrorism and intelligence gathering. This transition has been widely documented and is openly accepted by the bureau itself. According to an FBI report on its counterterrorism program after 9/11,

Since the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, the men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have implemented a comprehensive plan that fundamentally transforms the organization to enhance our ability to predict and prevent terrorism. We overhauled our counterterrorism operations, expanded our intelligence capabilities, modernized our business practices and technology, and improved coordination with our partners.

A major driver behind the FBI’s international cooperation is enabling other countries to handle terrorism within their own borders so the FBI does not have to bring a suspect back to the United States to faces charges.

Abuse Abroad?

While the FBI’s methods are targeted to prevent terrorism and assist organizations abroad, the bureau has faced a lot of scrutiny for its actions in other countries. There are several examples of people, often American nationals abroad, alleging that improper techniques were used to extract information or force compliance.

One example is of an American national, Gulet Mohamed, who was detained in Kuwait on suspicion of being connected with known terrorist Anwar Al-Awalaki. Gulet, who had traveled in Yemen and Somalia, was detained and aggressively interrogated. He was then placed on the no-fly list. Amir Meshal, another American national, fleeing Somalia and headed to Kenya, shared a similar fate. Meshal was detained in Kenya and claims that he was tortured in order to force a confession. Another instance is the case of Raymond Azar. Azar, a Lebanese citizen, was captured, stripped, and taken from Lebanon then flown to the United States to be charged with bribery.

Yonas Fikre is yet another example. Fikre was arrested in the UAE at the behest of the FBI. He claims that he was detained after he refused to be an FBI informant. According to Fikre, he was then subsequently tortured and added to the FBI’s no-fly list. Fikre is one of nine members of his mosque who he claims have been added to the FBI’s no-fly list for refusing to become informants. In Uganda, four men from Kenya and Tanzania claim that they were illegally detained and abused by FBI agents. They claim that they were tortured in relation to a bombing in Kampala that killed 76 people, a crime which they were suspected of committing. A spokesperson for the FBI said that all agents act within FBI guidelines and the laws of the country where they operate.

These methods have not gone unchallenged. Both Fikre and Gulet challenged their place on the no-fly list and the methods employed by the FBI during their detentions. Meshal also took issue with his capture and actually attempted to file a lawsuit against the FBI. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied him the opportunity because his case dealt with national security. The suspects allegedly tortured in Uganda took issues with the conduct of the FBI as well. Their allegations of abuse led to an internal investigation by the FBI. Ultimately, though, following the investigation, no charges were filed. In all cases, the FBI has maintained that its agents acted appropriately.

The video below details the specifics of the case:

Conclusion

Unbeknownst to many citizens, the FBI has had a large and increasing presence abroad since the early days of World War II. This presence generally takes the form of agents, known as legal attachés, who are stationed at American embassies all over the world. The agents are primarily concerned with acquiring information and disseminating it to local law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies in the United States. This system helps empower countries to effectively combat terrorism and domestic threats as well as further U.S. security interests abroad.

Aside from information gathering and training, FBI Legal Attachés are often called on for assistance in investigating crimes and terror threats. There are numerous examples of this, from the recent attack in Paris to earlier attacks in Africa; the FBI also has its own list of selected accomplishments. In these cases, the FBI offered expertise in analyzing a crime scene or technical skills that the local government did not have.

Nevertheless, the FBI’s efforts abroad are not universally acclaimed. In the course of its investigations, the agency has repeatedly faced criticism for abuse and punishments for not cooperating, such as adding suspects names to the no-fly list without probable cause. Despite criticism, the FBI often maintains that its agents acted properly and internal investigations rarely find wrongdoing.

The FBI’s shift from focusing on domestic investigations to gathering counterterrorism intelligence has led many to criticize the agency. But the FBI maintains that it must change in order to be “a global organization for a global age.” The FBI has continued to grow its international presence in the form of Legal Attachés and several counterterrorism task forces after the 9/11 attacks. While some may criticize this trend, most evidence suggests that it will continue.

Resources

New York Times: F.B.I. Sending Agents to Assist in Paris Investigation

San Diego Union-Tribune: Al-Shabab Leader Threatens More Ugandan Attacks

New York Times: In 2008 Mumbai Attacks, Piles of Spy Data, but an Uncompleted Puzzle

New York Times: Detained American Says F.B.I. pressed him

CBS News: American Can’t Sue FBI Over Abuse Claims, Federal Appeals Court Says

Los Angeles Times: Lebanese Man is Target of the First Rendition Under Obama

Open Society Foundation: FBI Responds to Kampala Abuse Allegations Cited in Open Society Justice Initiative

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does the FBI Do Abroad? appeared first on Law Street.

The nation, and quite frankly the world, is reeling after the disclosure of an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture practices following September 11, 2001. The report took a long time to come out–there was significant back-and-forth from the Senate, the White House, and the CIA. But now that it has, there’s no doubt–we regularly tortured people, and it didn’t work. The report is revealing, horrifying, and honestly, not entirely unexpected.

It’s an interesting time to be an American. We’re taught, from the youngest possible ages, that if you do something bad you pay the consequences. Our justice system is proof of that–we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. With freedom comes responsibility. Despite that, the CIA operatives, leaders, and anyone else in our government who were involved in this torture will probably never be punished. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle is someone who’s been thrown in jail for a few years for something like well, selling pot, and the pot brutally tortured approximately 100 prisoners.

There’s significant evidence to suggest that legal tracks were covered with regard to how we treated these prisoners. International Law, as grey and ineffectual a field as it is often considered, does exist. The Geneva Conventions dictate how nations behave in war and peace, and the particularly pertinent part is called Common Article 3, which forbids torture of prisoners. Essentially, it says that if someone is no longer an active participant in the conflict because of various reasons–including being detained–they must be treated humanely and the following cannot happen to them:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

In February of 2002, President George W. Bush signed an executive order proclaiming that Common Article 3 did not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners; however, it was ruled four years later by the Supreme Court that Common Article 3 does apply, in a separate case regarding Guantanamo prisoners. The ridiculousness of the fact that Bush decided part of International Law didn’t exist is kind of beyond the point–the Supreme Court has even acknowledged that Common Article 3 can be used in federal court for prisoners’ protection. As The New York Times put it:

Perhaps most significantly, in ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the Guantanamo detainees, the court rejected the administration’s view that the article does not cover followers of Al Qaeda. The decision potentially opened the door to challenges, by those held by the United States anywhere in the world, to treatment that could be regarded under the provision as inhumane.

Furthermore, the Justice Department has authorized at least some of the torture tactics used, although some of that was after the fact. The Justice Department began an inquiry in 2009, but no charges were ever brought against anyone. It has announced that it’s not going to revisit that decision.

Now, with the disclosure of this report, U.N. officials are demanding that the U.S. do something. As the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad al-Huseein, put it while calling for prosecutions:

In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture recognized as a serious international crime they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency.

He also pointed out that the United States did ratify the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994. Other U.N. officials, as well as leading humans rights experts have come forward to condemn the U.S.’s actions and demand some sort of accountability. It would be great if there was that accountability, but at this point I would be shocked. Everything the U.S. has done–Bush and Obama administrations alike–indicate that’s not going to happen. Everything in American history indicates that’s not going to happen. We have consistently shied away from the prospect that we could be held internationally accountable for our crimes.

Now, international law is incredibly complicated; the ways in which it applies to American law even more so. No one has the exact answers about what should or could happen here. But what’s almost certainly not going to happen is any sort of American appearance in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Located in The Hague, the ICC has the ability to prosecute individuals for various violations of international law. The statute that governs that court–the Rome Statute–has never been ratified by the United States. And the United States has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, meaning we can’t be referred.

The torture report indicates a horrifyingly dark time in this country’s recent history. We have the opportunity to make it clear that we recognize that truth, and an obligation to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We have a chance to show that we screwed up and we’re willing to pay the price. A chance to be an example of all of those ideals–freedom, democracy, right and wrong–that we espouse to other nations. Too bad we’re almost certainly not going to take it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture appeared first on Law Street.