NYT: Several Trump Incidents Raise The Question of Obstruction of Justice

PHOTO: Comey, Trump and the document of termination.

Though most Americans think of Trump's only impeachable offense as the ongoing, yet unproven fact of potential collusion with foreign entities; they're forgetting the largest, most probably and most taunting and haunting to the Trump admin: obstruction of justice, and whether or not Donald Trump can be charged with it.

It began an extremely short amount of time after Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States - when he dismissed then-FBI director Comey. He was dismissed on May 9th, 2017. Although Trump claims he was fired for actual 'cause' and 'reason'; it's clear-cut to anybody who's been paying attention that the former FBI director was fired to relieve pressure on Trump in the Russia investigation.

The thing is, Trump sparked his presidency with an upheaval of absolute controversy. Most of the controversy was directly linked to the potential that the Trump campaign attempted (or did) collude with Russian entities to help get him elected.

Keep in mind, at the time of the Comey dismissal, everything we know now was pretty much simple conspiracy against Trump. It was sharp speculation and criticism, that lead to inevitably be proven true by the replacement for Comey; Mueller.

Trump's administration and the entire Republican party has called out the Comey dismissal as a dismissal for 'cause'. At the time, Comey had been re-assuring President Trump that he had not been under investigation. For some odd reason; there's always been a clear fascination by the President on whether or not he was under the spotlight of something so critical to the Presidency.

Trump, in his letter of dismissal sent to James Comey, did thank Comey for re-assuring him that he hadn't been under investigation. It's probably sarcasm, but hey, we all know Trump himself unlikely was the one who wrote the message.

A while later is when the case of obstruction of justice became evident. A finding by numerous sources confirmed that Trump was telling people that firing James Comey was 'relieving great pressure' off of the Russia investigation. That's when Democrats started hinting that Trump fired Comey to end the inquiry.

It's also when Republicans came out on full defense to deny the case; saying Trump was innocent in the case of collusion and had absolutely nothing to hide. Saying that the Trump campaign hadn't talked with Russian officials; and firing Comey or keeping him aboard simply wouldn't change the outcome. Oh, were they wrong.

The obstruction of justice case continued on when the case of Russian collusion blew up in a spectacular fashion; specifically in the start of summer of 2017; where the June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and claimed Russian government lawyers came public; proving that they had intent of gathering anti-Clinton information.

Trump denied his knowledge of his son's meeting. At first, the meeting was claimed by Republicans to have been 'strictly about abortion' and related topics. Later, their lies came to life with the promotion and publication of the emails proving that they did, in fact, meet to gather damaging information to the political opponent; Hillary.

Now that they had proven that there was, at least, the intent to collude between Trump campaign officials and Russian officials; the obstruction of justice case quietly grew wider. With something that Trump clearly wanted to hide from the FBI now revealed; the possibility that the reasoning of Comey's dismissal was to protect this information became a real plausibility. But it didn't come until recently when the case of obstruction grew immensely; almost with the President's direct admission of guilt.

Mueller's takeover of the FBI's inquiry into Russian collusion, obstruction of justice and money-laundering crimes only sped up the process immensely. This is because of the Democrat's anger with the President's decisions surrounding these scandals.

In fall of 2017, Mueller layed out at least 4 indictments. Two of them were directly related to the Russia investigations; the only two that ended with a direct guilty plea. George Papadopolous plead guilty to lying to the FBI about Russian contacts. A recent NYT report indicated he may had sparked the inquiry altogether. Mike Flynn plead guilty for the same charge; in a much more damaging fashion.

Both men, part of Trump's campaign and Mike Flynn being a part of Trump's direct inner-government circle, agreed to plea bargains with Robert Mueller and agreed to cooperate with the FBI to gain a far lesser sentence. It heavily damaged Trump.

Along with the Mike Flynn plea and details emerging from Mueller's inquiry into the long-time government official; it came to be that Flynn had committed his crime before Comey had been dismissed. However, it didn't matter until Trump's lawyer technically admitted that Trump obstructed justice and knew about Flynn's crime.

Obstruction of justice can be either hindering the discovery of a crime from investigators or directly infiltrating such inquiries in order to terminate their inquiry altogether. Trump hindered the discovery of Flynn's crimes by hiding it from the FBI, and not telling Comey.

That could've been yet another reason that Trump felt the urge to dismiss the Russia probe altogether in fear that his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, could've been proven guilty in a massive blow to his Presidential credibility.

Now, as 2018 rings into America's politics, another NYT explosive report has once again risen the question if Trump committed the impeachable offense of obstruction of justice. Reports indicated that the President, a while back, had pressured the Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from the Russia probe with the expectation that Sessions would shield and defend him from anything they throw at him.

In fact, when Sessions announced his recusal, the NYT report indicated Trump said something as severe as "Where's my Roy Cohn?!" he asked, referencing a late attorney seen as 'evil', 'communist' and many other things amid controversy during the Red Scare throughout the American political milestone.

Cohn was known for strictly defending his customers/clients with all of his ability. He is also known as the one who helped Trump a lot during the day.

Trump's effort to have Sessions stay intact with the Russia probe just shows all of us that, yet again, Trump was afraid of something being released. And he wanted the Attorney General to stay in power in regard to the probe in order to 'defend' him and 'shield' him, whatever that means, from the Russia probe's findings.

Whether or not that meant that AG Sessions would've obstructed justice to defend the President is very uncertain; however this news wasn't the only one that came to light with the NYT special edition report and explosive breaking development. They also said that Sessions' aide worked on gathering dirt on Comey days before dismissal.

What does that mean? It's historic how obvious this is in relevance to obstruction of justice. Days before the dismissal of then-FBI director James Comey, Trump pressured the Attorney General Jeff Sessions to find dirt on Comey. It's clear that it was in effort to discredit Comey and find a 'cause' to fire him. That would suggest that Trump's only sole reason for firing James was directly to end the inquiry, and he was so desperate for it to end that he pressured someone else to find a reason for him to go away.

All of these new developments lead the New York Times, one of America's most known and reliable sources in terms of political news sources, to finally ask the burning question in back of everyone's minds:

"The special counsel's investigation has uncovered several incidents involving President Trump that raise questions about whether he obstructed justice." the NYT reporter Michael S. Schmidt reported in the column.