Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What Trump will be held responsible for remains to be seen.
His defense so far is that he's a naive newcomer making rookie mistakes and that's he can do whatever he wants because he's president and you're not.
Have to see how far that gets him.
If he keeps doing what ever it is he is to do, the drama around all of this will continue with nothing of substance, because Trump headlines sells a lot of newspapers.
Most people can look at Trump and know there is something off about him, but in the end it doesn't matter.
What's done is done and there is no take back, even though there are American who are embarrassed to have him as a potus.
That's your interpretation of his remarks. If what Comey has said is true, a different interpretation is just as valid as your interpretation. There is a pattern here. And, if what you've said is true, why didn't Trump own that, instead of the rhetoric about Comey's handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation? Why the change in stories?
Moreover, why would the Russians care about the pressure on Trump personally? Why would Trump share that? Unless he wasn't talking about the investigation's impact, personally, but about the investigation's impact on his administration and how it related to his dealings with Russia. THAT makes sense giving his meeting in the Oval Office with the Russians.
Its not an interpretation. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention.
All Trump cares about with regard to the Russian collusion investigation is that it is not connected directly to him. Why else did he put that seemingly odd statement in the firing letter thanking Comey for telling him what he wouldn't tell the American public.......even though Americans deserved to know that.
Trump did own it indirectly when he gave the interview saying he fired Comey over the Russia thing. Seriously, you think he was admitting on national tv that he tried to stop an investigation? Get out of here with that lol.
You people's hysteria over all things Trump has just made you brain dead.
All the liberals/climate scientists/federal criminal law attorneys, could you please explain just exactly how Trump committed the criminal offense of obstruction of justice?
My understanding is very hazy. As far as I know, the president has the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL authority to stop the FBI/Justice department from conducting any investigation.
“Throughout American history-- from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama-- presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals,” Dershowitz wrote.
So unless you get the 9th court to rule that Trump's authority is unconstitutional, where's the crime here?
If so, why did Comey disobey a direct order from the president or was it not an order?
PS: I am not saying what Trump did was right - in fact, I think it's highly inappropriate, but saying inappropriate things is NOT a crime. I do understand that impeachment is a political process not a legal one, but if the left is yelling obstruction of justice, a federal crime, I'd like to see how you guys prove this.
He perpetrated the unimaginable offense of beating their crappy candidate.
All the liberals/climate scientists/federal criminal law attorneys, could you please explain just exactly how Trump committed the criminal offense of obstruction of justice?
My understanding is very hazy. As far as I know, the president has the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL authority to stop the FBI/Justice department from conducting any investigation.
“Throughout American history-- from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama-- presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals,” Dershowitz wrote.
So unless you get the 9th court to rule that Trump's authority is unconstitutional, where's the crime here?
If so, why did Comey disobey a direct order from the president or was it not an order?
PS: I am not saying what Trump did was right - in fact, I think it's highly inappropriate, but saying inappropriate things is NOT a crime. I do understand that impeachment is a political process not a legal one, but if the left is yelling obstruction of justice, a federal crime, I'd like to see how you guys prove this.
Its not an interpretation. It should be obvious to anyone paying attention.
All Trump cares about with regard to the Russian collusion investigation is that it is not connected directly to him. Why else did he put that seemingly odd statement in the firing letter thanking Comey for telling him what he wouldn't tell the American public.......even though Americans deserved to know that.
Trump did own it indirectly when he gave the interview saying he fired Comey over the Russia thing. Seriously, you think he was admitting on national tv that he tried to stop an investigation? Get out of here with that lol.
You people's hysteria over all things Trump has just made you brain dead.
Brain dead?
Look at what you've written.
It doesn't matter if "all Trump cares about with regard to the Russian collusion investigation is that it is not connected directly to him." If his actions were to interfere with that investigation, for any reason, that's obstruction of justice. He told the world in the Lester Holt investigation that he fired Comey over the Russian investigation. An ongoing investigation. HIS obsession with whether he was under investigation or not is besides the point. He used his power to interfere with an ongoing investigation. While the FBI is an executive branch agency, the FBI and the Department of Justice have to operate independently of the President. They have to operate as un-biased, non-partisan entities working to defend the Constitution. This is why people, including myself, were outraged by Clinton meeting with Lynch when his wife was under investigation. Whether anything untoward was said during their conversation or not, Clinton initiating that meeting was inappropriate and tainted the investigation. As a nation, we value the independence of the Department of Justice and the FBI because if they weren't independent, if they weren't able to investigate the President or his associates, then that would be corruption. We would have a corrupt government.
It doesn't matter if "all Trump cares about with regard to the Russian collusion investigation is that it is not connected directly to him." If his actions were to interfere with that investigation, for any reason, that's obstruction of justice. He told the world in the Lester Holt investigation that he fired Comey over the Russian investigation. An ongoing investigation. HIS obsession with whether he was under investigation or not is besides the point. He used his power to interfere with an ongoing investigation. While the FBI is an executive branch agency, the FBI and the Department of Justice have to operate independently of the President. They have to operate as un-biased, non-partisan entities working to defend the Constitution. This is why people, including myself, were outraged by Clinton meeting with Lynch when his wife was under investigation. Whether anything untoward was said during their conversation or not, Clinton initiating that meeting was inappropriate and tainted the investigation. As a nation, we value the independence of the Department of Justice and the FBI because if they weren't independent, if they weren't able to investigate the President or his associates, then that would be corruption. We would have a corrupt government.
You are totally wrong. He did not interfere in the investigation one iota. Comey testified there was no effect on the investigation and then he went further and said Trump agreed it would be good if the FBI got to the bottom of things and nothing was there as well as saying if there was any wrongdoing by his "satelites" it should come out. Hardly someone trying to stop an investigation.
If that's not enough for you the now acting FBI director testified the week after Comey's firing that no one had tried to interfere with or stop the investigation.
The Clinton tarmac mtg is apples to oranges. Clinton met with Lynch while the other Clinton was an FBI target. Trump was not a target per Comey's own testimony.
Like I said........brain dead......failure of logic......loss of all common sense in these endless hysterical arguments from the left.
Obstruction of justice is a crime that gets proven by demonstrating a pattern of behavior where the intent becomes clear. Comey's testimony is damning evidence. However, the President denies some of the accusations that would go to establishing a pattern. He denies asking for Comey's loyalty. He denies asking that Comey ease up on Flynn. Those denials undermine Comey's narrative, and they undermine any case for obstruction of justice, because intent is key to such a case. If there were, indeed, tapes of those conversations, we would know for sure. The Secret Service has already publicly affirmed they don't have any recordings, and I doubt that any such recordings exist. If they did and they supported Trump's version of events they would have already been released. If they did and didn't support Trump's version of events, I would think someone in Trump's inner circle would have destroyed them. Without recordings, it becomes a President says v FBI director says. And a GOP Congress is going to be inclined to give the President the benefit of the doubt. Not just because Trump is the nominal head of the GOP, but because an impeachment of a sitting President is just bad for America. The peaceful and organized transfer of power from one President to another is a hallmark of our country, and it fosters a sense of stability about our system. Impeachment upsets that sense of stability, and unless a very solid case can be established, not a he-said-he-said case, then impeachment simply doesn't make sense.
You are totally wrong. He did not interfere in the investigation one iota. Comey testified there was no effect on the investigation and then he went further and said Trump agreed it would be good if the FBI got to the bottom of things and nothing was there as well as saying if there was any wrongdoing by his "satelites" it should come out. Hardly someone trying to stop an investigation.
If that's not enough for you the now acting FBI director testified the week after Comey's firing that no one had tried to interfere with or stop the investigation.
The Clinton tarmac mtg is apples to oranges. Clinton met with Lynch while the other Clinton was an FBI target. Trump was not a target per Comey's own testimony.
Like I said........brain dead......failure of logic......loss of all common sense in these endless hysterical arguments from the left.
Whether there was an effect on the investigation or not, if Trump attempted to impact the investigation is what obstruction is about. It doesn't matter if he was successful or not, it matters if he tried to interfere.
You seem to be the one failing logic and common sense. Your hysterical arguments have no foundation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
