Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[acbytesla]

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?

It doesn't. That said, then you can justify pretty much all wrongdoing by the President with that rationale. Seems to me a totally bogus argument. Nixon in his interview with David Frost said 'If the President does it, it's not illegal'. Do you buy that? I don't. Are we a nation of people or laws?

 

[Babbylonian]

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.

Welcome to the forum. Now, take the evidence you have of what you say and post it in another thread. This one is about the ****-spewing hellbeast occupying the Oval Office firing the Director of the FBI.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

God I love sarcasm. This is sarcasm? Right? Please say it is.

 

[Mumbles]

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

*breathes in*

AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

You're good, I'll give you that.

 

[Tony Stark]

Where does it say that?

Where does it say you can claim some obvious lie about your motive for trying cover up your criminal activity was about national security and you magically did not commit a crime?

 

[skyeagle409]

Lol, this election taught you a lot! ******* hilarious!

When leftists are out of power this is what they're reduced to.

Trump has made himself a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. The Russians saw Trump as a sucker. Check it out.

White House official on Russia's release of Oval Office photos: 'They tricked us'

A White House official is accusing Russian officials of lying after a state news agency released photographs of President Trump meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak.

That’s the problem with the Russians — they lie,” the unnamed White House official told Acosta.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...office-photos-they-tricked-us/article/2622784

I knew the Russians lie when I was in school and the Trump administration is just now finding that out??? Trump is an idiot!

Make America Great Again! Dump Dumb Trump!!

.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

And a semi-inadvertent* blunder by a Clinton-hating** Comey.

*I can't say how unconscious or conscious the deed was so I'm going with unconscious.

**I say that based on his Senate hearing when he gave his statement about the Oct letter. He let it slip he was sure she was guilty and if they found her emails from the first three months it would surely have something incriminating in them, even though he hadn't found diddly squat in any of the other emails.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Where does it say you can claim some obvious lie about your motive for trying cover up your criminal activity was about national security and you magically did not commit a crime?

I didn't say the possibility was right. But all the other stuff is written down.


Where does it say your first amendment trumps inciting violence?
Where does it say it doesn't?
Oh look, Brandenburg v Ohio

I don't​ care what the correct answer is, I just want to know why it is the correct answer.

 

[acbytesla]

I didn't say the possibility was right. But all the other stuff is written down.


Where does it say your first amendment trumps inciting violence?
Where does it say it doesn't?
Oh look, Brandenburg v Ohio

I don't​ care what the correct answer is, I just want to know why it is the correct answer.

You need to go and read more about that Court decision becaus as Inigo said 'I don't think it means what you think does'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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. ...

Lot's of people would have indicted him. And "bothered" is the wrong verb. It would have been a disgrace to the country had Nixon gone to jail. That was the motive that kept him out of jail, not your thought he was punished enough.

My how times have changed.

 

[skyeagle409]

When leftists are out of power this is what they're reduced to.

Trump blundered when he fired the FBI director because Trump is dumb.

Poll: Trump approval ticks down, partly due to drop among base
Nearly all interviews done ahead of Comey firing

The poll, taken May 4-9, pegged Trump's approval at 36% compared to 58% who said they disapprove of his performance as President.

Nearly all interviews were done ahead of the news that Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news...oval-ticks-down-partly-due-to-drop-among-base

How Popular is Trump? Latest Approval Rating Plummets as White Supporters Flee

It's no secret President Donald Trump isn't popular with the majority of Americans, but a new poll this week shows he is beginning to lose some of the demographics that thrust him into the White House.

The Quinnipiac University survey found that just 36 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing, while 58 percent disapprove. That's a "near-record" negative rating and a drop from last month, the poll noted. In its April 19 poll, Quinnipiac University found Trump's approval rating stood at 40 percent with 56 percent disapproving.

Perhaps even more troubling for the president: The folks who made up his base in November's election appear to be growing weary. White voters are fleeing.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/popular-trump-latest-approval-rating-151710548.html

 

[BobTheCoward]

You need to go and read more about that Court decision becaus as Inigo said 'I don't think it means what you think does'.

"Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute violated the First Amendment, as applied to the state through the Fourteenth, because it broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence rather than the constitutionally unprotected incitement to imminent lawless action."

Seems like I nailed it. If you want.to test if free speech trumps inciting violence, you can reference Brandenburg.

 

[acbytesla]

"Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute violated the First Amendment, as applied to the state through the Fourteenth, because it broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence rather than the constitutionally unprotected incitement to imminent lawless action."

Seems like I nailed it. If you want.to test if free speech trumps inciting violence, you can reference Brandenburg.

How does that have anything to with the National Security claim?

Also FYI about Brandenburg v. Ohio:

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

 

[BobTheCoward]

How does that have anything to with the National Security claim?

It wasnt there to shed light on the national security question.

I asked Tony where it said X. He replied with where does it say Y. My point is I don't care if it says x or​ y, I only want to know where it says it.

My frustration is that we don't have this problem in a lot of other issues. If I ask where it says A, and.tony asks where it says B, and A and B are claims about the first amendment and inciting violence, there are obvious places to start like Brandenburg.

I thought the mirroring of the conversation was clear. But this is a pattern for me. Am I really difficult to understand?

 

[acbytesla]

It wasnt there to shed light on the national security question.

I asked Tony where it said X. He replied with where does it say Y. My point is I don't care if it says x or​ y, I only want to know where it says it.

My frustration is that we don't have this problem in a lot of other issues. If I ask where it says A, and.tony asks where it says B, and A and B are claims about the first amendment and inciting violence, there are obvious places to start like Brandenburg.

You lost me. Maybe I missed something. That reference seemed like out of left field. But I'm still not sure that Brandenburg applies. The court ruled that the freedom of speech had limits and inciting violence was one of those limits. Just that the statute couldn't be so broad as to be a catchall.

But hey, I'll chalk it up to what I seemed to have missed.

 

[Tony Stark]

In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.

Only seven days after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as president, James B. Comey has told associates, the F.B.I. director was summoned to the White House for a one-on-one dinner with the new commander in chief.

The conversation that night in January, Mr. Comey now believes, was a harbinger of his downfall this week as head of the F.B.I., according to two people who have heard his account of the dinner.

As they ate, the president and Mr. Comey made small talk about the election and the crowd sizes at Mr. Trump’s rallies. The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him.

Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense.

What a total piece of ****.

 

[trustbutverify]

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.

Well, he's been kicking his own butt since he got in, so you're technically correct.

 

[Puppycow]

In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.



What a total piece of ****.

Funny how what Trump says happened in private conversations always seems to differ so much from what the other person remembers.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You lost me. Maybe I missed something. That reference seemed like out of left field. But I'm still not sure that Brandenburg applies. The court ruled that the freedom of speech had limits and inciting violence was one of those limits. Just that the statute couldn't be so broad as to be a catchall.

But hey, I'll chalk it up to what I seemed to have missed.

I'm not bringing up Brandenburg as if it applies to the nixon thing. My point was that if instead of a post about Nixon, if I made a post about free speech and incitement, the next post someone made would have brought up Brandenburg. If I made a post about detainees, the next post is about Hamden. but I made a post about obstruction of justice, and we haven't mentioned any law or case history.

I don't care what the correct answer on my question is. But a cite or some related case would go a long way.

 

[Darat]

I get the feeling he makes a very lousy CEO and if he wasn't good at real estate shenanigans, fraud, and getting involved in money laundering, he wouldn't be rich.

You forget the most important reason he is rich: he was born rich.