Merged Trump Fires Comey....

Babbylonian said:
Expressing any desire (beyond following the law) regarding a particular ongoing investigation by the FBI is at least inappropriate for a sitting President. Expressing the desire that the FBI director end the investigation is a clear attempt to obstruct justice given that the occupant of the Oval Office has the power to fire that person.
Click to expand...

You know, I would have thought so, too. But an interviewee on PBS this evening (forget his background, sorry) said that asking the FBI to drop an investigation because Flynn is a good guy is not obstruction, if the sole reason you ask him to is because you think he's a good guy who's suffered enough. If, on the other hand, it is for some more nefarious reason, then it is obstruction.

That rather surprised me.

ETA: The interviewee was William Jeffress, "a trial lawyer who has worked on criminal and civil cases at Baker Botts; one of his best known cases was defending Scooter Libby, the chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney,", and the transcript can be found here.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
You know, I would have thought so, too. But an interviewee on PBS this evening (forget his background, sorry) said that asking the FBI to drop an investigation because Flynn is a good guy is not obstruction, if the sole reason you ask him to is because you think he's a good guy who's suffered enough. If, on the other hand, it is for some more nefarious reason, then it is obstruction.

That rather surprised me.
Click to expand...
Except that between that "request" and the reported request for loyalty there was an implicit threat, a threat that was followed through when Comey was fired. Yes, if the request to drop the investigation existed in a vacuum it would only be wildly inappropriate. This, however, was not the case. Then you've got White House press morons "hoping" that Comey's dismissal will mean the completion of the Flynn investigation. Honestly, I don't think there's a properly firing neuron in that place right now.
 
Babbylonian said:
Except that between that "request" and the reported request for loyalty there was an implicit threat, a threat that was followed through when Comey was fired. Yes, if the request to drop the investigation existed in a vacuum it would only be wildly inappropriate. This, however, was not the case. Then you've got White House press morons "hoping" that Comey's dismissal will mean the completion of the Flynn investigation. Honestly, I don't think there's a properly firing neuron in that place right now.
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing over whether Trump obstructed justice. I was pointing out that the following statement is, generally speaking, not true if Jeffress is correct.

Babbylonian said:
Expressing the desire that the FBI director end the investigation is a clear attempt to obstruct justice given that the occupant of the Oval Office has the power to fire that person.
Click to expand...
 
phiwum said:
You know, I would have thought so, too. But an interviewee on PBS this evening (forget his background, sorry) said that asking the FBI to drop an investigation because Flynn is a good guy is not obstruction, if the sole reason you ask him to is because you think he's a good guy who's suffered enough. If, on the other hand, it is for some more nefarious reason, then it is obstruction.

That rather surprised me.

ETA: The interviewee was William Jeffress, "a trial lawyer who has worked on criminal and civil cases at Baker Botts; one of his best known cases was defending Scooter Libby, the chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney,", and the transcript can be found here.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with that defense. He followed it up with terminating Comey and it sure seems he did it to halt the investigation and all you have to consider is the words in Comey's termination letter. 'I want to thank you for telling me I wasn't being investigated.

No I don't think that dog will hunt.
 
phiwum said:
I wasn't arguing over whether Trump obstructed justice. I was pointing out that the following statement is, generally speaking, not true if Jeffress is correct.
Click to expand...
It's a big "if" and subject to the interpretation of the prosecutors involved.Further, the interpretation offered is dependent on the request being made entirely in good faith, only because "Flynn is a good guy." That's a bar far too high for the current occupant of the Oval Office to reach without a high-rise crane given that it has proven time and time again to be only loyal to itself.
 
Babbylonian said:
It's a big "if" and subject to the interpretation of the prosecutors involved.Further, the interpretation offered is dependent on the request being made entirely in good faith, only because "Flynn is a good guy." That's a bar far too high for the current occupant of the Oval Office to reach without a high-rise crane given that it has proven time and time again to be only loyal to itself.
Click to expand...

As I said, I wasn't speaking about Trump but about your claim that any time a president requests the FBI end an investigation, he is obstructing justice. This is, according to Jeffress, not true.

Nothing you wrote above is relevant to my point therefore, aside from the claim that the interpretation of prosecutors matters and, relatedly, the condition that the request is made in good faith.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Both wrong:
Donald J Trump@RealDonaldTrump
With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a special councel appointed!​
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/865169927644340224
Click to expand...

I guess the second thing President Trump needs to do (after learning how to spell :rolleyes:) is to establish what these illegal acts were and demonstrate that they haven't already been thoroughly investigated.

He (and his supporters) really does seem to live in a different world of his own imagining....
 
Spindrift said:
Yes, it is a nice throwback to corruption in the good ole days of Watergate.
Click to expand...

Just so long as once they are done with the Presidential sideshow, we get back to oppressing the real "thugs." We came by the title honestly and I'll be damned if whitey steals that from us too.
 
Argumemnon said:
Hilarious? No, I'm really confused. Perhaps asking me to think about it more wasn't as great an answer as actually explaining it, but Stacko took care of that. Still not hilarious.
Click to expand...

It's a Macbeth reference.

'By the pricking of my thumbs,. Something wicked this way comes. Open, locks,. Whoever knocks. I can tell that something wicked is coming by the tingling in my thumbs'.

Maybe not hilarious but it's funny to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom