More news liberals don't want to hear

Under oath, Comey states Trump never asked him to stop an investigation.

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/uh-oh-comey-said-under-oath-15843518/

Waiting wrote:Under oath, Comey states Trump never asked him to stop an investigation.

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/uh-oh-comey-said-under-oath-15843518/

So what? There's a Special Counsel now and it'll all come out. What Comey had said is totally irrelevant now. Wise up, sonny boy.

Hannity? Hahahahahaha.

Let me help Pace again. Obstruction of justice does not require success. It simply requires intent to obstruct. When President Trump fired the FBI director, his intent was to take the pressure off the investigation. That is a prima facia case of obstruction of justice. The fact that Trump never told the person to stop the investigation, does not mean a thing when the cumulative evidence of obstruction is clear.

2seaoat wrote:Let me help Pace again.  Obstruction of justice does not require success.  It simply requires intent to obstruct.  When President Trump fired the FBI director, his intent was to take the pressure off the investigation.  That is a prima facia case of obstruction of justice.   The fact that Trump never told the person to stop the investigation, does not mean a thing when the cumulative evidence of obstruction is clear.

Mens rea. Obstruction has to involve provable intent. None here.

And there has to be a criminal process involved. None here.

Obstruction has to involve provable intent.

Admission of intent has already been provided.  The act of firing the FBI Director perfected the admission.  Keep using that Latin summoner.

Waiting wrote:Under oath, Comey states Trump never asked him to stop an investigation.

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/uh-oh-comey-said-under-oath-15843518/

Pay attention Waiting! The question asked was of senior officials at the Justice Dept. not the President. Comey answered correctly no one at the Justice Dept. ever asked to stop an investigation.

2seaoat wrote:Obstruction has to involve provable intent.

Admission of intent has already been provided.  The act of firing the FBI Director perfected the admission.  Keep using that Latin summoner.

Intent has not been PROVED, it has been alleged but not to meet any standard of evidence.

The crime of obstruction also requires that a criminal process exist involving the person accused of obstruction. There is no ongoing criminal process for Trump to have obstructed. An investigation is NOT a criminal process.

Look it up or call whoever you called when I proved how WRONG you were about D.C. law.

No Capslock. There is a criminal investigation going on and you can obstruct a criminal investigation.

Vikingwoman wrote:No Capslock. There is a criminal investigation going on and you can obstruct a criminal investigation.

Trump denies it. I seriously doubt that this DOJ will prosecute that charge because it would be so hard to prove. It may be included in Articles of Impeachment--it was in Clinton's case and probably would have been in Nixon's if he hadn't resigned--but THIS House is not going to find Articles of Impeachment.

I personally believe he did intend to impede the investigation but I would sure hate to prove it in a court of law beyond a shadow of doubt. My guess is that there will never be a criminal charge of obstruction, not by his own Department of Justice.

This whole thing is not as clear cut as it would appear. There's also the problem of prosecuting a sitting president, something few people mention.

This is a good article about the whole issue, both sides, longish but worth it.

https://sidebarsblog.com/2017/05/15/did-president-trump-obstruct-justice/

No, he won't be criminally charged. I think Oatie's right about that being the President but I'm not so sure about the Repugs not impeaching him. Remember, Pence is much more to their liking. There is going to be crisis after crisis w/ Trump impeding the repug agenda. Nothing is getting done.After Comey testifies there is going to be more public resentment toward Trump. I think his poll numbers will sink so low and he will resign.

Vikingwoman wrote:No, he won't be criminally charged. I think Oatie's right about that being the President but I'm not so sure about the Repugs not impeaching him. Remember, Pence is much more to their liking. There is going to be crisis after crisis w/ Trump impeding the repug agenda. Nothing is getting done.After Comey testifies there is going to be more public resentment toward Trump. I think his poll numbers will sink so low and he will resign.

Crisis after crisis is good! If the Democrats can keep that pot boiling for another 18 months, maybe they can retake the House. And if they can then stall impeachment for 12 or 14 months, they have a good chance of winning back the Presidency.

Crisis after crisis is our friend and I suspect the NYTimes and the Post will be more than happy to oblige.

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529171249/report-trump-told-russians-he-fired-nut-job-comey-because-of-investigation

There are plenty of sources. Trump himself admitted he fired Comey because of "the Russia thing". He blew his own cover and contradicted his new spokesperson.

Any rookie just out of law school could prove the elements of the crime of obstruction of justice in this case, however you cannot bring that charge until the President is no longer holding the office of President, so the only remedy is a political remedy of impeachment. The summoner admitted he does not know chit, and it is about the only thing that he has posted on this forum which rings true. If this was a mayor in Toledo who fired his police chief because he was investigating the mayor's violation of the law who admitted that he fired the police chief to impede the investigation, the grand jury would already have the case. The President is protected from criminal prosecution while in office. If Nixon did not obstruct justice, why was he given a pardon once he resigned?

2seaoat wrote: If Nixon did not obstruct justice, why was he given a pardon once he resigned?

Because Alexander Haig told Ford: "Look, you dumb shit, why do you think you got this job? Now sign the goddamn pardon or I'll kick your ass." That's why.

The potus shouldn't speak to any active investigation. Obama did it... and now trump.

It isn't criminal... but I'd be pleased if it were.

PkrBum wrote:The potus shouldn't speak to any active investigation. Obama did it... and now trump.

It isn't criminal... but I'd be pleased if it were.

Oh, look, little PkrBoy is telling the grown-ups what they should do. Isn't that cute. Too bad no one takes little PkrBoy seriously.

Poor little PkrBoy, he's just such a mess. Run to mommy, little PkrBoy and have her check your diaper.

or I'll kick your ass." That's why.


Haig kicking Ford's asz....now that is funny.

2seaoat wrote:or I'll kick your ass." That's why.


Haig kicking Ford's asz....now that is funny.

At the time, 1973, Haig was 49-year old career military officer who commanded a battalion in 'Nam.

Ford was a 60-year old career politician who apparently suffered brain damage playing football in college and hadn't lifted anything heavier than a pencil in forty years.

So, yeah, Haig would have kicked his ass.

                                                         DUH!

So, yeah, Haig would have kicked his ass.

Too funny.  Not a chance.  Like putting on a uniform makes someone a tough guy.  Haig was a flunky who could not even get into west point from high school and was a dumb asz, but married a general's daughter and got all kinds of questionable advancements and medals, but the idea of a fifty year old wimp kicking the asz of a Michigan offensive lineman who is 60 is hysterical.  Go back to your computer games in your basement and play some war games tough guy.  You are a hoot.

It's hard to explain the level of a D1 athlete to a non-athlete... they have no context.

I used to play basketball with a friend who played offensive line for Wisconsin. He worked out and was about my size 6'3'' but his strength was off the chart. I could not bench press half of what this man was doing, and on the basketball court he was not very good, but you could not move him from under the basket for rebounding. He is about 68 now and I do not know any 50 something people who would even think about messing with this mass of a man. Of course our sock who lives in his mother's basement has never played sports and has no idea what a D-1 offensive line person is....but what is new. Jerry Ford getting his asz kicked by a politician who happened to wear a uniform....again....too funny.

2seaoat wrote:I used to play basketball with a friend who played offensive line for Wisconsin.  He worked out and was about my size 6'3'' but his strength was off the chart.  I could not bench press half of what this man was doing, and on the basketball court he was not very good, but you could not move him from under the basket for rebounding.  He is about 68 now and I do not know any 50 something people who would even think about messing with this mass of a man.  Of course our sock who lives in his mother's basement has never played sports and has no idea what a D-1 offensive line person is....but what is new.  Jerry Ford getting his asz kicked by a politician who happened to wear a uniform....again....too funny.

You can't be serious. Ford was such a klutz that he became a meme before there was such a thing and his verbal gaffs and blunders were legendary. Chevy Chase made a career off his clumsiness.

It's only recently that the damage caused by repetitive head injuries sustained in football has been exposed. Ford probably had chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE, the progressive brain disorder associated with football and boxing. He may have been a great athlete in college but by the time he was President, he was a klutz and dolt.

Haig, on the other hand, was ten years younger and had won a Siver Star or something for bravery in a two-day battle in Vietnam in which he commanded a battalion against a vastly superior force. I can't remember the name of it but it was famous at the time. He later became the head of West Point.

He was a protege of Kissinger and eventually became Nixon's Chief of Staff then Reagan's Secretary of State so he was probably a war criminal, but no one can fault him for courage or ability.

Ford was selected to replace Agnew precisely because he was so harmless and bland. He's a perfectly example of failing upwards.

Vikingwoman wrote:No, he won't be criminally charged. I think Oatie's right about that being the President but I'm not so sure about the Repugs not impeaching him. Remember, Pence is much more to their liking. There is going to be crisis after crisis w/ Trump impeding the repug agenda. Nothing is getting done.After Comey testifies there is going to be more public resentment toward Trump. I think his poll numbers will sink so low and he will resign.

Toking that bong so early?

Impeachment doesn't necessarily mean removal from office. See: holder.

But i agree that someone (probably well down the line) will likely have done something unethical... if not technically criminal. My hope is that they will look at everyone's background w Russia or any other foreign entity. I'm sick of the special access that politicians are allowed already.

It's time to start checking the federal govt.