None. That's not the legal definition of treason. Undermining the President is within your rights as an American citizen.

Not as an enemy of the United States it's not. Are you saying the Rosenberg's were just "undermining the Presidency"?

Do we have to remind you....'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'.?
Politifacts 2013's LIE OF THE YEAR:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-plan-keep-it/

No, but you should take it as a compliment. Labeling it 'trolling' implies you don't actually really believe the stupid **** you post.

I mean, if you're not trolling or getting paid to shill, well, ****, that's incredible.

Okay.

Trump should apologize to the American public because comey said he felt trump is a liar that lies

?????????

0 evidence, 0 hard facts and trump should apologize

what kind of liberal bubble do you guys live in?

Ahahah how many words should have scare quotes around them?

I'll start. "Leaking" and "confidential". Now you go.

What if your parents wanted to hypothetically have a 213th trimester abortion?

Apparently it's the bubble where they learn what 'if' means.

You misread my post. I'm discussing the hypothetical where Trump did lie.

ah sorry I assumed the worst

I feel bad for you if you believe this to be true. You put no work into your arguments and every single time you actually proffer an opinion it's 100% whatever BS you came up with in your head with zero basis in reality. Maybe if you were a world-class genius, posts with that kind of backing would be worthwhile, but it's unfortunately clear from reading yours that such is not the case.

Hopefully tomorrow afternoon I'll have time to read more on the subject but for now, I'll point out that the article you posted to support your argument also believes that Dershowitz is wrong. Not a very strong case for your view supporting Dershowitz!

Before going to bed, one last thought - I think you're missing the point of the article.

Obviously Comey is not an independent counselor and the article did not think he was.

The point is that in order for SCOTUS to even find the Independent Counsel Act constitutional - which, they did - they had to reject Dershowitz's argument that the president has ultimate control over any and all federal investigations.

The stuff at the end about Scalia seems like your typical poo-flinging, don't see how it's relevant.

Unfortunately Dershowitz does not win this point.

Saying things you want to be true does not make them so. The only way to remove Presidential authority was by invoking the Independent Counsel Act (which no longer exists). We have a clear case of Loretta Lynch obstructing justice on behalf of Bill Clinton (who knows how to obstruct), and yet the Regressives want to go after Trump. It's laughable.

Yes, anyone ever called a troll on the internet automatically wins. Great point.

I actually agree with this.

But it's more likely that Trump is actually convicted of wrongdoing ainec.

1 is worded too loosely to bet on - both requires we know what he was thinking, and for a condition to be met that might not even be true since he's never said it was obstruction of justice. Change the wording to "indicted on charges relating to withholding the memo from the meeting where trump allegedly expressed hope that comey drop the flynn investigation " and it's acceptable.

2 should also be similarly worded - "indicted on charges relating to releasing contents of private conversation with trump pertaining to the previously mentioned meeting" and it's acceptable.


Those two conditions being met vs trump being impeached or resigning within his 4 year term, even money. If neither happens each get their money back.

Good for you?

JiggyMac citing to a dissent lol that's even better than him citing a Snopes article debunking an article. ****ing precious.

I don't bet on politics, although I would probably win a lot of money if I did.

I was referring to myself, not anyone else.

Glad you took to heart the kind of advice that's meant to discourage ******ed people from developing self destructive habits. Trust in christ.

I don't pray that Scalia is on my side, I pray that I am on Scalia's side.

Ironic the statute was allowed to expire, as the dissention predicted, no?

Or do you stand in opposition to the dissenters in Dredd Scott and believe that slaves should still be considered property?

Satisfying the reasonable doubt condition depends a lot on the relationships that're revealed between trump, flynn and russian actors through the meuller investigation. It all comes down to how suspicious the activity is.

If you're working on the assumption that it's all a fabrication and nobody has done anything unsavory (and that the investigation will reveal as much), then of course it won't look like obstruction.

There is, though, whether dishonest people want to admit it or not, a lot of pieces to the puzzle that are cause for suspicion, and if there is substance to it (not saying there is) the meuller investigation will likely reveal juicier details. Enough to indict for collusion/treason? Hard to say.

But the evidence required to indict for collusion or treason is probably far greater than what would be necessary to impeach for obstruction. Because even if you weren't sure that he was guilty... the appearance of impropriety goes a long way in proving motive. If it comes to that, i think everyone is going to have an interesting time interpreting the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

There are types of collusion that are constitutional, and other types that are not constitutional though, so a distinction needs to be made.

As Scalia would say - this is so much applesauce.

Well, if there is enough evidence for one charge, we can press charges. If we have that same level of evidence for another charge, we can't. The seriousness of the charge is what is at stake, unless the charge is too serious that we can't seriously think that we need serious folks seriously considering it. Gobbledygook!!!

There is no appearance, there is no mind reading, this is not about intent. Either things happened or they did not happen. Why do Leftists love to tie up the English language. We are not back to the meaning of "what 'is' "is"".