During the James Comey hearing Thursday, someone edited the Wikipedia entry for “obstruction of justice” to list President Donald Trump as one of many “notable examples.” Trump has not been convicted of obstruction, and Comey’s testimony did not suggest he should be. Worse, the anonymous editor altered the entry from a congressional IP address.
“Obstruction of justice Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US House of Representatives,” tweeted congress-edits, a bot account that reports on anonymous Wikipedia edits made from IP addresses in the U.S. Congress. The edits can be viewed at this link.
https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/872831021162659841
Democrats and the liberal media argue that Trump, in firing former FBI Director Comey, obstructed justice by attempting to prevent an FBI investigation into Michael Flynn. A reporter for The New York Times, Adam Liptak, found examples of people being convicted of obstruction of justice for statements of hope.
For instance: Eighth Circuit affirmed an obstruction of justice enhancement based partly on an “I hope” statement https://t.co/85F2d7A8A4 pic.twitter.com/EbQHsCphL7
— Adam Liptak (@adamliptak) June 8, 2017
But when Comey was asked point-blank if Trump asked him to stop the investigation, the former FBI director said, “Not to my understanding, no.”
Former U.S. attorney Matthew Whitaker told CNN, “There is no criminal case to be made on an obstruction of justice.”
“We have the star witness that testified, and quite frankly, his story doesn’t rise to the level of intent necessary on behalf of the president to even substantiate a criminal case,” Whitaker explained.
Indeed, liberals face a difficult situation. If Trump is guilty of obstructing justice for his statements and actions toward Comey, it is arguable that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch is also guilty. During his testimony Thursday, Comey explained that Lynch told him only to refer to the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton as a “matter.” He further revealed that he found this “concerning” and a “conflict of interest.”
At the end of the day, only a court — or Congress in the case of the president — can convict a citizen of obstruction of justice, and no such conviction has been made in the case of President Trump.
The Wikipedia entry has since been re-edited to omit Trump from the “notable examples” of obstruction. But that does not change that someone — likely a staffer — in the U.S. House of Representatives deliberately altered an Internet record to slander the president, in the absence of a conviction.
This only confirms once again that Trump’s enemies — and perhaps especially those in government — are willing to twist the truth to tarnish the president’s reputation. At least in this case, the fabrication was short-lived.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member