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 Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence for a man who has been on death row since 1997 because of the racist testimony of a witness called by his own lawyers. On Wednesday, the court decided 6-2 to give Duane Buck another chance. Buck was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend, and wounding his own stepsister, with a shotgun in Texas in 1995.

During the sentencing phase of the trial in 1997, Buck’s own defense lawyers knowingly called an expert witness to the stand who claimed that Buck ran a higher risk of posing a danger in the future because he is black. “It’s a sad commentary that minorities–Hispanics and black people–are over-represented in the criminal justice system,” said former prison psychiatrist Dr. Walter Quijano.

ICYMI: Today #SCOTUS ruled in favor of a new sentencing hearing for our client, #DuaneBuck. Read our statement: https://t.co/xlU5mo1zPP pic.twitter.com/CxEOJPTgil

— Legal Defense Fund (@NAACP_LDF) February 22, 2017

The jury listened to Quijano and sentenced Buck to death. Then began Buck’s long series of appeals. He appealed the original sentence, but didn’t raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. A state court affirmed his sentence. Then Buck’s lawyer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but it didn’t mention Quijano or his testimony. But then it was discovered that Quijano had given racist testimony in several other cases. Some of those convicted raised claims in federal court in 2000, and they were granted new sentencing hearings.

Duane Buck’s trial lawyer, who put on testimony that his own client was dangerous for being black, still works in the 208th court every day.

— Franklin Bynum (@bynumlaw) February 22, 2017

Buck’s lawyer filed a second habeas petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by the trial lawyers, but it was filed in state court and not in federal. Then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn said that because Buck’s own defense had called Quijano as a witness, there was no mistake made by the state and therefore nothing that needed to be fixed. The fact that Buck didn’t mention Quijano in the first habeas corpus was the final nail in the coffin.

In the new petition, filed in October, Buck’s defense cited “extraordinary circumstances” in order to pursue the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, even though that legally should have been done in the first place. This time SCOTUS listened. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision that the testimony in 1997 by Quijano claimed “that the color of Buck’s skin made him more deserving of execution. No competent defense attorney would introduce such evidence about his own client.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the heinousness of Buck’s crime and his lack of remorse justify the death penalty. But, Buck will now be able to have a new hearing on his sentence.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Overturns Death Sentence for Black Man Whose Lawyer Called Racist Witness appeared first on Law Street.

A judge has ordered “The Wolf of Wall Street,” aka Leonardo DiCaprio, to testify in a lawsuit against the filmmakers of the 2013 movie. You might think it would be flattering to have a character featured in a movie with one of the biggest stars of today based off of you, but businessman Andrew Greene claims that it portrayed him as a “criminal, a drug user and a degenerate.” Now he wants $25 million in damages.

@BBCWorld @LeoDiCaprio
Is he going to be questioned about The Titanic sinking as well?

— Paul_Ed (@eddo75) June 17, 2016

Greene is the former executive at the brokerage firm the film depicts, Stratton Oakmont, portrayed through the character Nicky “Rugrat” Koskoff, the guy with the bad toupee. DiCaprio plays the main character, Jordan Belfort, who founded Stratton Oakmont and made a fortune by defrauding investors.

Greene initially sued Paramount Pictures for over $50 million in 2014. Paramount claims that Koskoff, played by P.J. Byrne, is a mashup of multiple people and that Greene is just one of them. The hairpiece played a role in many jokes in both the movie and in Belfort’s memoir that the movie is based on.

Oh, it's not even about Jordan Belfort. It's about how Nicky Koskoff was portrayed to look bad in the film lol. pic.twitter.com/7BDABHMzRF

— Tea Lizard (@brettSTYX) June 17, 2016

The judge rejected Greene’s claims of defamation, but allowed him to change his suit to malicious libel. The plaintiff’s side wanted DiCaprio to testify since he played a big part in the production of the movie, but he has so far been “too busy.” The defendants claim that the accounts of director Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Terence Winter should be enough. They have also argued that DiCaprio didn’t have any means of controlling other actors’ performances.

.@LeoDiCaprio is being asked to testify against the creators of Wolf of Wall Street in a defamation case. #9Today https://t.co/98ZIaOo6OA

— The Today Show (@TheTodayShow) June 15, 2016

But the judge sided with the plaintiffs, and has now ordered DiCaprio to court. However, the orders are vague, stating he should show up for his testimony “at a reasonable time and place agreed to by the parties.”

The real “Wolf of Wall Street,” Jordan Belfort, spent 22 months in prison for money laundering and fraud. He went on to write his biography and is still paying off debts to the victims of his financial schemes.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Leonardo DiCaprio to Testify in Lawsuit Against “The Wolf of Wall Street” appeared first on Law Street.

Steve Jobs will be testifying in a class-action trial in which it is being alleged that Apple broke anti-trust laws.

Now, Steve Jobs is, of course, dead. But before he died, he recorded a deposition and now that deposition will be played during the trial. In addition to the deposition, emails that he sent during that time period will also be used.

The suit essentially says that during part of the early iPod era–2006 to 2009–Apple only allowed music downloaded from iTunes to play on the devices. The reverse was also true–if you downloaded music from iTunes, which was admittedly one of the easiest platforms at the time, you couldn’t get it to play on another kind of device. By not allowing music downloaded from competing companies, Apple essentially broke anti-trust practices. That’s obviously no longer the case–Apple changed its products to allow music from other platforms in 2009. Now, it’s pretty easy to get content from other music retailers onto iPods, iPhones, iPads, or any other Apple devices, but “the plaintiffs argue that it inflated the prices of millions of iPods sold between 2006 and 2009 to the tune of $350 million.”

Jobs’ “testimony” seems like it could be pretty damning for Apple. For example, an email released a few years back includes a statement from Jobs as follows:

We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod. Is this going to be an issue?

In addition, the plaintiff’s attorneys claim that their most salient proof comes from the reaction that Jobs had to a rival company, RealNetworks, releasing software called “Harmony.” Harmony would have allowed songs purchased from Real to be played on Apple devices. Apple responded by quickly releasing updates that rendered Harmony incompatible. Bonnie Sweeney, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that there is evidence that Jobs was furious at Harmony’s release, and his testimony will show that.

Jobs isn’t the only familiar face from Apple who will be testifying at this trial. Marketing Chief Phil Schiller and the exec who runs Apple’s software sales, Eddy Cue, will also be there.

The fact that Jobs’ testimony is being incorporated a few years after his death says a lot more about our court system than the case itself. The case was first filed in 2005, and there’s been basically a decade of legal back-and-forth over the issue. Now, almost 10 years later, it’s hard to even remember the days when you could only use iTunes if you had an iPod. In addition, the money that’s up for grabs–the suit is for $350 million–really isn’t that much to a company like Apple. After all, Apple makes about $180 billion in a single year. But it’s gotten pretty used to defending itself in court, and this is just further example of that attitude.

What’s really making the news here isn’t the class-action lawsuit–which to be honest is pretty run of the mill and boring. It’s the fact that Jobs, who has an almost cult-like following, is going to be sort of the “star witness” from the grave. It’s not something that our legal system really imagined, but it could very well help prosecutors prove their case against Apple.

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 Steve Jobs to Testify Despite Being Dead appeared first on Law Street.