Former GOP congressman




"exonerated" lol

If you're trying to splice the words of the guy who had justice obstructed by Lynch, then perhaps the internet isn't good for your mental health. Sounds like you're in chaos, I hope you get the help you need.

"I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go."
"I expect loyalty."
*fires Comey after he doesn't drop investigation*
"I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."

Yeah, nothing to see here.

Good thing Gowdy won his seat then.

Also, looks like Inglis might not find fans in this forum anyway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Inglis
"Inglis is a staunch advocate of a federal prohibition of online poker. He also supported actions to aid people in war-torn Darfur. In 2006, he co-sponsored H.R. 4411, the Goodlatte-Leach Internet Gambling Prohibition Act[16] and H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.[17] On December 27, 2008 Inglis published an op-ed in The New York Times in support of a revenue neutral carbon tax.[18]"

It is interesting after all of the corruption from the Clintons that
a) His wife was ever politically capable of running in the first place
b) He wasn't convicting on his more substantive crimes besides lying under oath. Al Capone and tax evasion and all...

This could be sour grapes from Inglis considering he lost a Republican primary for not being Republican enough - don't know where he's been on issues since his loss.

lol, more cherry picking and wanting it both ways. Is Comey's testimony reliable, or isn't it? If Donald Trump doesn't come out of yesterday looking bad to you Trumpkins, then Loretta Lynch couldn't possibly be worrying about anything she did right now.

Jiggy/Bitchi/Sushy all have some amusing echoes of this Washington Post article on the "Trump Internet"'s reaction to Comey testimony, spicy memes abound, but perhaps most of all this:

How embarrassing is it for you guys that you've worked yourselves up into quite a lather over two month old details that even the hyper-liberal fake news New York Times reported on?

That is correct, everyone knows he's dishonest - both his supporters and detractors.

Note that the hearing wasn't about the russia collusion case though. That's why he repeatedly said he couldn't take about it in an open hearing. What we got was pretty much what was expected... doesn't mean it's nothing though.


Does it prove obstruction? Of course not. Maybe he was just felt it necessary at that moment in time to express his hopes and dreams to comey because he thought he'd be a sympathetic ear. Maybe he asked the other people to leave the room because they had bad BO. All you just need the tiniest shred of doubt to justify whatever opinion you want to be true, and the political world is filled with dishonest people.

It wasn't a command or an order, but you'd have to be downright ******ed to think that he wasn't trying to influence him. As for the actual definition of obstruction, we'll have to wait and see, but let's not pretend that the vast majority of people dismissing these claims are doing so on completely dishonest grounds.

"exonerated" lol

http://openjurist.org/46/f3d/636/uni...es-v-a-johnson

"exonerated" lol

(this is not even the same case Liptak references in the tweet above)

Which, goofy's examples are for when crimes have already been committed. What crime was Trump being investigated for? Does Trump have the authority to tell Comey not to investigate Flynn for his phone calls with Russian Ambassador (please check your answers with Alan Dershowitz before replying).

Hope, line, and sinker.

I've seen several articles from respected legal minds today suggesting Dershowitz is wrong. Should I bother posting them?

If you have someone with the gravitas of Dershowitz refuting him, by all means do.

Think it really comes down to if a person believes Trump had a corrupt intent.

Most of the legal analysis I have seen which believes there is obstruction of Justice relies on Trump wanting to hide or cover up wrong doing with Russia. Whether by ending the investigation or by protecting Flynn and preventing Flynn from turning states witness.

While the other follows Dershowitz.

Really Mueller needs to find Trump was covering something up to pursue the obstruction charges. Otherwise if Trump knew there was nothing to the Russia collusion thing and really all he was expressing a opinion/order (ie Flynn's a good guy you should let it go) on the Flynn/Turkey felony (which was not really even dealing with Russia collusion issues) then there is really no corrupt intent.

Goofy, you need to read more reputable news sources. You're continually getting it wrong.

Wow, good catch. These two things are exactly the same, so long as Comey is directly overseeing the weather.

I'm guessing you knew this was a terrible thing to post, but you don't care how bad it makes you or your side of the argument look.

Correct me, then. On its own this is just a worthless blind assertion.

I already gave you the correct facts earlier itt.

Your Watergate turned out to be Nothinggate. LOL

NYU Law professor Rick Pilldes contends that the Supreme Court has in past cases rejected Dershowitz's defense of Trump:

Dershowitz's fellow Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe has made numerous comments disagreeing with him on Twitter, including this one that points out Nixon was innocent under Dershowitz's standard, along with several more in his feed where he strongly disagrees with Dershowitz.

I have a lot more reading to catch up on today and unfortunately not enough time, but I'll try to get more later.

Haha wow, these posts?

Kiddie game is down the street, Sushy, come back when you actually have stronger arguments than dumb assertions w/ zero sourcing you picked up from the derposphere.

So, which ones did I get wrong then?

- "nothingburger" - lol no
- "Comey in the ****" - lol no, Trump might try some **** and it won't go anywhere (I will happily bet against anyone who thinks Comey leaking that memo will get him in serious legal trouble, and none of you will take that bet because deep down you all know it's true)
- Trump exonerated / no obstruction of justice - lol no, and I've made several sourced posts backing up reasons why

Until Trump gets charged with obstruction of justice (and found guilty) then I am right and you are wrong, no matter how many sources you quote.

Both Comey and Loretta Lynn should be investigated for illegal activities.

You think legality is the only issue here?

Well, how else do you prove anything? All we have at the moment is hearsay.

Even exactly what was said is in dispute.