• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
All executive power is vested in the president. No one in the government has the power to investigate him if he says they don't.

Insofar as investigating someone is an executive issue and not a juridical issue. Since we're talking about obstruction of justice, it is, if anything, a judicial issue, where the Supreme court has the power, in theory, to stop an investigation.

McHrozni
 
Insofar as investigating someone is an executive issue and not a juridical issue. Since we're talking about obstruction of justice, it is, if anything, a judicial issue, where the Supreme court has the power, in theory, to stop an investigation.

McHrozni

What country do you live in? The U.S. Supreme Court has nothing to do with the investigation of crimes. Obstruction of justice is a serious criminal charge that can be made against pretty much anyone who obstructs or impedes a criminal investigation, which is conducted by law enforcement authorities and prosecutors.
 
I haven't read through the whole list posted here by the Washington Examiner yet. I'm sure it's listed elsewhere as well.
 
I don't get the "Comey testified under oath that Trump never asked him to terminate any investigation" part of the GOP talking points. From what I understand of the Comey testimony, that is the opposite of what Comey testifies.
 
I don't get the "Comey testified under oath that Trump never asked him to terminate any investigation" part of the GOP talking points. From what I understand of the Comey testimony, that is the opposite of what Comey testifies.

that's the point I guess.
 
He was a competent ruler until the last 25 years of his rule where he engaged in a series of wars that did not turn out well for France and petty much bankrupted the country...in fact, the Bourbons never really recovered from the mess that Louis the 14th made in his last two decades of rule.

But one interesting thing:Louis had the ruler of one of his main traditional opponents....Great Britain...on his payroll for a number of years.....

No kidding. Charles the Second received a "pension" from Louis for a number of years.

So he might have been a bit of Putin as well as Trump.

I think we might be using different definitions of "competent". I meant "qualified for the job when hired" essentially.
 
Real consequences and legal consequences are not same and people often mix the two.

So if I go to jail it is only a legal consequence and it has no real consequences?

Since you seem to enjoy doing philosophy, you should be able to understand the following - the word "real" has no real external referent and it is itself a social construct. In every day words - you can't see real nor hold, touch, smell or taste it. It is all in the head just like legal.
 
So if I go to jail it is only a legal consequence and it has no real consequences?

Since you seem to enjoy doing philosophy, you should be able to understand the following - the word "real" has no real external referent and it is itself a social construct. In every day words - you can't see real nor hold, touch, smell or taste it. It is all in the head just like legal.

The law is not a social construct.

Social construct:

development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notions that human beings rationalize their experience by creating models of the social world and share and reify these models through language.

Social construct are not simply the things constructed by society.

The law is not a model or rationalization. It is written statements on what people who monopolize violence will do to you for doing X.
 

Back
Top Bottom