Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[BobTheCoward]

I have an extremely hard time believing that you believe that it is an acceptable reason to obstruct justice.

This is why I said possible. I have no idea if it is an acceptable reason or not. No one has been able to explain why or why not.

Any other issues, we can hurl case law and concepts back and forth, but I haven't really gotten an answer to this question.

 

[a_unique_person]

Concur. Seems he has already contradicted the talking points his underlings were giving.

Analysis: President Trump just decimated the White House's entire Comey narrative

They put all that hard work into creating plausible deniabiliy and he just tears it all down in a few seconds.

 

[Tony Stark]

This is why I said possible. I have no idea if it is an acceptable reason or not. No one has been able to explain why or why not.

Any other issues, we can hurl case law and concepts back and forth, but I haven't really gotten an answer to this question.

The notion that the president is allowed to obstruct justice because of some extremely tenuous link to national security is ridiculous on the face of it. Nixon would have been laughed at if he tried that in court.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The notion that the president is allowed to obstruct justice because of some extremely tenuous link to national security is ridiculous on the face of it. Nixon would have been laughed at if he tried that in court.

What legal precedent makes it ridiculous on it's face?

 

[Tony Stark]

What legal precedent makes it ridiculous on it's face?

How about the fact that many people in the administration got sent in prison for the whole thing. What legal precedent says that the president and the president only is immune from prosecution if he claims national security?

 

[BobTheCoward]

How about the fact that many people in the administration got sent in prison for the whole thing. What legal precedent says that the president and the president only is immune from prosecution if he claims national security?

The argument isn't that he immune from prosecution. The argument is that the CIA asking the FBI to not look into something with a national security interest is not obstruction.

Immune from prosecution and not broke the law are different.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I can't fathom how disaffected the nation must be, to deliver him a win the Electoral College.

Pro Tip: a little Bear named Vladimir had a lot to do with it.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

What legal precedent makes it ridiculous on it's face?

The legal precedent that says Obstruction of justice is a crime.

 

[Tony Stark]

The argument isn't that he immune from prosecution. The argument is that the CIA asking the FBI to not look into something with a national security interest is not obstruction.

Immune from prosecution and not broke the law are different.

It is clearly is when the intent is cover up your criminal wrongdoing which it very clearly was.

 

[acbytesla]

Let is assume it goes before the supreme Court following some sort of DoJ charges and legal challenges. Nixon makes a national security claim. How do the justices wiegh the circumstances and what do they base those on?

You tell me. Do you really think that the Nixon was protecting the National Security or himself?
Keep in mind that the SC voted 8-0 against Nixon's claim of Executive privilege. Do you really believe that the Warren Court would buy the National security argument? I don't.

That said, Nixon's conviction in Federal court was not a sure thing. But I've never argued that even though its unquestionable to me he was guilty as hell. I've only argued that he would be charged.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It is clearly is when the intent is cover up your criminal wrongdoing which it very clearly was.

Based on what legal concept? That is the part I have never heard answered.

The CIA can ask the FBI to not look into a crime for security implications. It probably is often to essentially cover up a crime. By what legal principle is the fact it is your own crime makes a difference?

 

[BobTheCoward]

You tell me. Do you really think that the Nixon was protecting the National Security or himself?
Keep in mind that the SC voted 8-0 against Nixon's claim of Executive privilege. Do you really believe that the Warren Court would buy the National security argument? I don't.

That said, Nixon's conviction in Federal court was not a sure thing. But I've never argued that even though its unquestionable to me he was guilty as hell. I've only argued that he would be charged.

I can't tell you because I don't know how courts would react. But I have one problem with your characterization. I never said it wasn't to protect himself. But where does it say if it both protects yourself and has national security implications, National security still doesn't win out?

 

[Tony Stark]

Based on what legal concept? That is the part I have never heard answered.

The CIA can ask the FBI to not look into a crime for security implications. It probably is often to essentially cover up a crime. By what legal principle is the fact it is your own crime makes a difference?

Based on the the legal concept that trying to cover up a crime is obstruction of justice. It being one's own crime makes the mens rea that much clearer.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Based on the the legal concept that trying to cover up a crime is obstruction of justice. It being one's own crime makes the mens rea that much clearer.

So the CIA asks the FBI to not look into a crime to cover it up as arresting person X could compromise national security. Why isn't that obstruction?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Another thing I noticed watching rerun clips on the Trump interview, Trump revels in power over Comey.

When he recounts the dinner and is telling Holt about Comey saying he'd like to stay on, Trump gets all power tipsy in his facial expression, his tone of voice, saying "I told him we'll see" the way a dad might tell their kid that he'll see about the child getting a popsicle if he does a good job of his chores.

Seeing the interview then hearing the reports it went down very differently with Trump asking for a loyalty pledge and Comey not giving him one, given we can't believe a damn thing Trump says, and how that makes the loyalty oath story more likely than the Trump version, I imagine the dinner was one of the seeds of Trump's discontent.

And, I wonder how many other people Trump has had the loyalty talk with?

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think anyone would have bothered indicting him. He was out of office, disgraced, as was his whole administration including VP Spiro Agnew. Oil-producing countries were getting uppity and we had fairly recently gotten out of Vietnam. I really don't think dragging out the whole mess was foremost on the minds of the American people. To what end? To put Nixon in prison?

I was a newly minted teenager asking my lawyer father: "Is it evidence before someone subpoenas it?" Wondering why he made the recordings in the first place, if not to preserve information. Nixon's own self-centered and paranoiac leanings his undoing. Interesting man. A lot more interesting than Trump. Wheels within wheels, while Trump is just a grotesque and gargantuan infant. His facial expressions reinforce my opinion - I can only see his mouth as either suckling a teat or puckering to deliver a fresh load of diarrhea (or puke). Certainly whatever comes out of it is certified BS. I can't fathom how disaffected the nation must be, to deliver him a win the Electoral College.

I ABSOLUTELY believe he would have been indicted. Almost 50 people were convicted of crimes connected to Watergate. No way can the DOJ turn a blind eye to the man in the eye of the hurricane. They wouldn’t be able to justify not charging him.

But convicting him is another story.

 

[EricLobster]

So?

Trump has been kicking butt since he got in. Can we please leave him alone so he can get some more work done? Just because you personally hate him doesn't beat the fact that he's accomplished more in just a 100 days than anyone else in office.

 

[Tony Stark]

So the CIA asks the FBI to not look into a crime to cover it up as arresting person X could compromise national security. Why isn't that obstruction?

If the national security claim is obvious bs and the real motive is to cover up the crime for its own sake, then it is obstruction.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If the national security claim is obvious bs and the real motive is to cover up the crime for its own sake, then it is obstruction.

Where does it say that?

 

[Tony Stark]

Trump has been kicking butt since he got in. Can we please leave him alone so he can get some more work done? Just because you personally hate him doesn't beat the fact that he's accomplished more in just a 100 days than anyone else in office.

No we won't leave that corrupt lying piece of human trash alone. I hope he is miserable for the entire time he is president.

And it is objectively false that "he's accomplished more in just a 100 days than anyone else in office". He has had a very poor first 100 days.