Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said former FBI Director James Comey "appears" to be "confessing to a crime."
Gohmert said that if - as Comey's reported memo suggests - President Trump attempted to obstruct the Michael Flynn investigation, then Comey may be guilty of something too.
"I'm amazed that an FBI director and former prosecutor would be confessing to a crime the way that it appears that he is," Gohmert said.
He said that under 18 U.S. Code Section 4, Comey is required by law to report any attempt - including by the President of the United States - to obstruct a federal investigation.
— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) May 17, 2017
"If this [memo] happened a couple of months ago then it sounds [like] he has got to report it immediately and I've heard no evidence that he reported [it]," Gohmert said.
Gohmert said Comey appears to have intentionally waited until it was "politically expedient" for the contents of this memo to be released to the press.
"[That] would make it a crime for him," Gohmert said.
Fox News' own Gregg Jarrett, a former attorney, made a similar case in a recent column on FoxNews.com.
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime.
There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do. Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months.
What do you think? Watch the clip above.