Crikey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynn

It's so hard to argue this from a constitutional perspective since i doubt anyone here cares enough to dig up the particulars (it will come out when it comes out), but when dershowitz claims that the president has the ability to call off investigations it's hard to imagine that there aren't any exceptions to deal with cases where the president is implicated.

Whether the flynn case overlaps with trump is hard to say at this point ... but if there is an exception it seems very disingenuous to leave that part out. Suppose there was an investigation into trump - or, say, that mueller opened one since being appointed, and finds suspicious activity that isn't enough to lead to an indictment, but shows suspicious activity between flynn and trump that they would have or should have known would look extremely bad. Does that not strongly suggest that trying to divert attention from the case was for corrupt reasons? How much circumstantial evidence do you need before it satisfies the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria?

It upsets me that my president has been credibly accused under oath of lying to the American people by the former head of the FBI. That doesn't bother you?

Whoops, sorry.

Getting my music mixed up with my politics.

He's bitter and angry at getting fired, so his credibility could be seen as suspect imo.

Whether or not anything Trump did rises to the level of obstruction of justice, Trump has clearly brought a lot of this Russia stuff upon himself.

Like hiring a guy in Manafort who was most known for advising a pro Russian stooge in a Ukrainian election.* Or hiring and then sticking with Flynn after being warned by Obama and Yates about his ties to Russia.

Even if you just focus on the things that are known it is pretty bad..

(Also since even Trump supporters know that he is a liar, we have no basis to trust what he says about this meeting, right? Maybe he will come up with those tapes he tweeted about to straighten it all up)

*https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...ine-explained/

Sure fair enough, Comey could be lying. But the accusation should still be taken seriously. If it turns out that Comey's claim is accurate, then even if the President didn't commit a crime, he should still apologize to former director Comey, the FBI, and the American public.

Does it bother you at all that the person in the charge of the FBI is claiming that his only response to an attempt to obstruct justice was write a memo to himself only? Mind you this is the Director of the FBI, you know like the chief Federal govt law enforcement honcho. We'll see how it plays out but I am almost certain that Dems will be demanding the tapes of the conversations. Are there any?

I don't think it's accurate to say that it was Comey's only response as he has turned these memo's over to Mueller. But yeah, it does bother me. I wish Comey had shown more courage in his immediate response to the President. I do recognize that he was in a difficult situation and I don't know that I would have done better.

Richard Burr should demand these tapes. The President claimed that Comey perjured himself in his testimony to the Senate. If he has proof of this claim, then the Senate should subpoena it.

By your own standard saying "Comey is in the ****" is wrong until he's charged and found guilty. Just dumb trolling from a full-time troll like always. Kiddie game is still down the street.

Sushy is right, you can't trust those ****in' cops. We need to make the FBI director wear a body-cam. :P

Real-er response: Comey drafted the memos before he got fired, so the whole "he was bitter because he got fired" thing doesn't seem to work to me...

Well if we're to take the word of alan dershowitz, this wasn't an obstruction of justice to call off the investigation as long as flynn is an unrelated party.

It's only if and when they can prove that there's an unsavory connection between flynn, trump and russia that it becomes obstruction of justice. And in proving trumps complicity this is just another piece of a puzzle that hasn't yet been pieced together, so it would be completely inappropriate for him to call out the don at that point in time.

And as for the whole Russian collusion debacle. I hate to be the bearer of bad news again guys but....

There's more chance of Comey being charged at this point than Trump ainec.

I always laugh when the troll accusation comes out, because it means I have won the argument again. Try a bit harder OK, and find more reliable news sources.

Propaganda is also a repetitive activity.

If it does turn out that the President lied though, even if the Russian collusion investigation doesn't result in a charge, would you agree that he should apologize to the American people? Former FBI Director Comey swore under oath that the President of United States lied to American citizens. The President swore to faithfully execute the office of the presidency. Do you not expect him to take that oath seriously?

Who wants him to pretend to be sorry? Nobody thinks he's honest, and his lack of honesty is at the bottom of the list of things that people should be concerned about.


Guilty of what? Give specifics and lay some odds.

Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

So you want me to comment on an unproven, hypothetical situation without any context which may or may not have happened. That's just silly.

The situation is not that unclear. James Comey asserted in sworn testimony that President Trump lied to the American people. You can examine whether those claims are accurate. If you don't think there is sufficient evidence now to make this judgement, it isn't hard to imagine that there could be such evidence. In such a situation, would you expect President Trump to apologize to the American public for not being truthful with them?

1) If he thought the President was trying to obstruct justice, he was legally obligated to report it at the time it happened.

2) Leaking confidential information of a private meeting he had with the President while he was FBI director.

Sorry, but I'm not going to pass judgement on a hypothetical situation.

If it does turn out that Democrat Party pushed a false Russian collusion narrative that didn't exist to undermine the legally elected President of the United, which members of the Party who gave aid and comfort to our enemies should be tried for treason?

Um, a few things here.

1) Comey was not an Independent Counselor.
2) The Independent Counsel act expired in 1999 - for precisely the reason of political abuse, which...
3) Interestingly, Scalia was the only dissenter for precisely the politicization we are discussing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_v._Olson

"Justice Scalia, the lone dissenter, said that the law should be struck down because (1) criminal prosecution is an exercise of "purely executive power" and (2) the law deprived the President of "exclusive control" of that power. In his opinion, Scalia also predicted how the law might be abused in practice, writing, "I fear the Court has permanently encumbered the Republic with an institution that will do it great harm."

Dershorwitz 1 - Pilldes 0

As for your second post, we can go with The Hill: Ties go to the President:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...rofessors-cant

"But Tribe strays much too far in the other direction. In a criminal trial, it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump dismissed Comey with the intent of hindering or obstructing an investigation. "

Okay, I'll remove the hypothetical then. Do you think the President has a sworn duty to be honest with not lie to the American people?