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.
And possibly obstruction of justice if Trump knew before firing Comey.
Alan Dershowitz has already debunked the theory of obstruction of justice. Nothing in the law would prevent POTUS from shutting down the investigation or firing to prevent an investigation. That is a political, not legal issue.
Trum obstructing an investigation regardless of his innocence or the investigations relevance or legality ,Trump has exposed himself to charges. That is the law.
Oh, so are you acknowledging that this Russian investigation is showing nothing related to its purpose??
And you clearly don't have a clue about what it means to obstruct and what POTUS' powers are. Here is a gem from Alan Dershowitz discussing the matter:
Simply put, only if POTUS acts to instruct his aides to violate the law or violates the law himself is he susceptible to an obstruction charge. As head of the executive branch, President Trump has the power to order an investigation stopped or to fire someone leading an investigation or to pardon all under investigation. Excercising one's legal powers as president cannot be obstruction. Take it from leftist Alan Dershowitz if you won't take it from me. I don't know why this is so difficult for leftists to understand. Its not a difficult concept.
Oh, so are you acknowledging that this Russian investigation is showing nothing related to its purpose??
And you clearly don't have a clue about what it means to obstruct and what POTUS' powers are. Here is a gem from Alan Dershowitz discussing the matter:
Simply put, only if POTUS acts to instruct his aides to violate the law or violates the law himself is he susceptible to an obstruction charge. As head of the executive branch, President Trump has the power to order an investigation stopped or to fire someone leading an investigation or to pardon all under investigation. Excercising one's legal powers as president cannot be obstruction. Take it from leftist Alan Dershowitz if you won't take it from me. I don't know why this is so difficult for leftists to understand. Its not a difficult concept.
not at all that is something you just made up. try actually reading my post in context to post i was replying to if that is not too much trouble for you.
Dershowitz entire story is HIS OPINION. furthermore i suggest you read it yourself. It relies repeatedly on "IF" and "Should". The law "should" say xyz.
Andy sure does "wish" the law was a certain way, which is why he must use "should" time and again.
It is called parsing. Scanning is what folks like andy rely on. If you read it with your critical thinking skills turned to the on position you can see he has nothing. try it, Prospect it might surprise you.
Alan Dershowitz has already debunked the theory of obstruction of justice. Nothing in the law would prevent POTUS from shutting down the investigation or firing to prevent an investigation. That is a political, not legal issue. The only time that POTUS would overstep a legal line is if he attempted to shut down an investigation into himself. But that is not what we have here.
This an investigation of Trump's organization, which could lead all the way up to him. If Congress suspects that Trump obstructed justice, knowing that Flynn lied to the FBI, they might take action. Or not. Depending on the politics.
not at all that is something you just made up. try actually reading my post in context to post i was replying to if that is not too much trouble for you.
Dershowitz entire story is HIS OPINION. furthermore i suggest you read it yourself. It relies repeatedly on "IF" and "Should". The law "should" say xyz.
Andy sure does "wish" the law was a certain way, which is why he must use "should" time and again.
It is called parsing. Scanning is what folks like andy rely on. If you read it with your critical thinking skills turned to the on position you can see he has nothing. try it, Prospect it might surprise you.
Nice try, but he also speaks authoritatively on what powers the Constitution grants to the president; not merely "if" and "should." As far as for the "if" and "should" statements, let's be clear: little case law exists on the matter precisely because it is pretty evident to anyone who makes an honest effort to actually read the Constitution and understands how our government works and what POTUS' powers are. As much as your may want to take POTUS down, you have to actually understand the law and how it applies and does not apply to POTUS. By the way, your critical thinking comment was so laughable that I nearly spit my water out. Truth is that you've shown so little critical thinking during this entire debate that it would be funny if it wasn't so sad as a symptom of how little many actually understand our constitutional structure, etc.
Still, using your "critical thinking skills" do break down step by step the case for Trump obstruction, including the exact laws that he would have broken.
This an investigation of Trump's organization, which could lead all the way up to him. If Congress suspects that Trump obstructed justice, knowing that Flynn lied to the FBI, they might take action. Or not. Depending on the politics.
And, again, how would Trump have obstructed justice? Please break down that case for me and others.
Nice try, but he also speaks authoritatively on what powers the Constitution grants to the president; not merely "if" and "should." As far as for the "if" and "should" statements, let's be clear: little case law exists on the matter precisely because it is pretty evident to anyone who makes an honest effort to actually read the Constitution and understands how our government works and what POTUS' powers are. As much as your may want to take POTUS down, you have to actually understand the law and how it applies and does not apply to POTUS. By the way, your critical thinking comment was so laughable that I nearly spit my water out. Truth is that you've shown so little critical thinking during this entire debate that it would be funny if it wasn't so sad as a symptom of how little many actually understand our constitutional structure, etc.
i get it. he says something you agree with , so in your head his opinion becomes fact...
sorry to tell you his opinion is just his opinion and make it sound authoritative it requires he repeatedly say "if' and "should". without the "ifs" and "shoulds" what has he got? absolutely nothing.
obstruction is an impeachable offense this should not be news to you...
i get it. he says something you agree with , so in your head his opinion becomes fact...
sorry to tell you his opinion is just his opinion and make it sound authoritative it requires he repeatedly say "if' and "should". without the "ifs" and "shoulds" what has he got? absolutely nothing.
obstruction is an impeachable offense this should not be news to you...
You clearly don't as everything I wrote went right over your head.
Moving along, what is it that you do not comprehend? No one is arguing that obstruction is not an impeacheable offense But, then again, so is jaywalking, though no sane Congress would impeach for something so silly; "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a catch all phrase. The argument is that the things you and others claim that POTUS has done does not and cannot be obstruction. To suggest/claim/argue otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution and the authority it grants to POTUS. Hell, Bill Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice; trust, it is lost on no one that obstruction is, indeed, an impeacheable offense. But Bubba actually violated the law by lying under oath. What law did President Trump break that would lead to an obstruction of justice charge? How did any action or alleged action taken by President Trump run afoul of the law? I (and many others) are still waiting on a coherent answer. Again, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
You clearly don't as everything I wrote went right over your head.
Moving along, what is it that you do not comprehend? No one is arguing that obstruction is not an impeacheable offense But, then again, so is jaywalking, though no sane Congress would impeach for something so silly; "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a catch all phrase. The argument is that the things you and others claim that POTUS has done does not and cannot be obstruction. To suggest/claim/argue otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution and the authority it grants to POTUS. Hell, Bill Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice; trust, it is lost on no one that obstruction is, indeed, an impeacheable offense. But Bubba actually violated the law by lying under oath. What law did President Trump break that would lead to an obstruction of justice charge? How did any action or alleged action taken by President Trump run afoul of the law? I (and many others) are still waiting on a coherent answer. Again, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
You have been answered at least 100 times. here is the deal, if you are not worried and you are right and we are all wrong. then our words mean nothing and you can "move along"...
see how easy that is?
And again i get YOU believe Alan is right. I believe he has completely misjudged the situation. Mueller is ascertaining if there is or is not a crime , not seeking conviction. If during the course of his investigations he uncovers other crimes that is just bad luck. Mueller has a job to see WTF happened or did not happen. You love trumpy so you think Mueller is a prosecutor seeking to "nail" trump. i am tired of your nonsense there was clearly a major crime, and clearly Russia is up to its neck. obstructing this investigation is a crime. You can argue all day as to what meets that standard. Alan has his view , other experts have theirs, you select alan because he suits your needs , you have one voice on the left that supports what the right wing wants to hear, so you guys repeat his highly disputed opinion piece as if its existence makes you correct.
I maintain Alan is wrong. I base that on various expert voices speaking on the topic. Unless you are an expert on constitutional law and willing to out yourself, your opinion holds no more weight than mine.
There are plenty of constitutional lawyers who disagree with Alan. I suggest you stop limiting yourself to the one guy who agrees with you, widen your horizons.
December 2017 and the mainstream media pundits are still running hit pieces and trying to explain away Hillary’s loss. It’s delusional.
Hillary lost. Get over it.
We are interested purely in the crook currently squatting in the WH.
Oh - and Nixon used the same excuse.
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.
do break down step by step the case for Trump obstruction, including the exact laws that he would have broken.
But, then again, so is jaywalking, though no sane Congress would impeach for something so silly; "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a catch all phrase. The argument is that the things you and others claim that POTUS has done does not and cannot be obstruction. To suggest/claim/argue otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution and the authority it grants to POTUS. Hell, Bill Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice; trust, it is lost on no one that obstruction is, indeed, an impeacheable offense. But Bubba actually violated the law by lying under oath. What law did President Trump break that would lead to an obstruction of justice charge? How did any action or alleged action taken by President Trump run afoul of the law? I (and many others) are still waiting on a coherent answer. Again, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
