POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Where is the high crime and misdemeanor? You may not like the guy, but incompetency is not grounds for impeachment.

If he blocked an investigation into a foreign power colluding with ANY group that is involved in an election, isn't that a high crime in misdemeanor?

And if that blocking is also preventing a real assessment of a possibility of the President violating the emoluments clause, which is even more spelled out in the Constitution, isn't that a high crime and misdemeanor?

This isn't lying about an affair, this is colluding with a different country. One that historically has been an opponent to ours in a MAJOR way. I really don't get anyone blowing off the Russians as not as bad as some say- especially Republicans. Give me a break. This is only country in the world who has anywhere near the nuclear arsenal as we do, this is a country that has bombed ordinary people in Syria saying that they were ISIS. This is a country that just took Crimea, and continues to threaten Ukraine. This is a country that the "president" basically threw out the constitution that was formed after the USSR collapsed so that he could remain the #1 guy. Give me a break.

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

I disagree. A.) There's no evidence Comey's firing hampered the investigation in any way, as testified to before Congress by Andrew McCabe. (In fact it seems probable to have had the opposite effect.) B.) If we're to believe Grassley and Feinstein, Comey confirmed that Trump himself isn't the target of any investigation in a classified briefing. C.) The opinion that Trump shouldn't be allowed to make the decision to fire Comey is just that, an opinion, and it has no basis in law. Trump unequivocally had the power granted to the President to remove Comey or anybody else that serves "at the pleasure of the President." The President is not like a federal judge at all, and is not required to recuse himself from any decision ever, for reasons that should be obvious.

Dershowitz correctly says that intent is not enough. There must be an illegal action to go with it. If in the Godfather, on the way to the cornfield to whack Paulie Gatto, they had been in a car accident and Paulie was killed, Clemenza would not be guilty of anything, even though he intended to kill Gatto minutes later. The worst that could happen is that his cannoli might be ruined.

Maybe at this moment. But we will see. Seems to me that enough people are getting fired or dissed that if it was true, which sure looks like it, we will find out soon enough.

But it's also possible that the Comey incident isn't what it going to take this administration down. It will likely more be the result of the investigation- which we will find out.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

If he blocked an investigation into a foreign power colluding with ANY group that is involved in an election, isn't that a high crime in misdemeanor?

And if that blocking is also preventing a real assessment of a possibility of the President violating the emoluments clause, which is even more spelled out in the Constitution, isn't that a high crime and misdemeanor?

This isn't lying about an affair, this is colluding with a different country. One that historically has been an opponent to ours in a MAJOR way. I really don't get anyone blowing off the Russians as not as bad as some say- especially Republicans. Give me a break. This is only country in the world who has anywhere near the nuclear arsenal as we do, this is a country that has bombed ordinary people in Syria saying that they were ISIS. This is a country that just took Crimea, and continues to threaten Ukraine. This is a country that the "president" basically threw out the constitution that was formed after the USSR collapsed so that he could remain the #1 guy. Give me a break.

It shouldn't matter what country it is, if my understanding is correct. If it were colluding with Lichtenstein, it should be the same result.

[unofan]

I disagree. A.) There's no evidence Comey's firing hampered the investigation in any way, as testified to before Congress by Andrew McCabe. (In fact it seems probable to have had the opposite effect.) B.) If we're to believe Grassley and Feinstein, Comey confirmed that Trump himself isn't the target of any investigation in a classified briefing. C.) The opinion that Trump shouldn't be allowed to make the decision to fire Comey is just that, an opinion, and it has no basis in law. Trump unequivocally had the power granted to the President to remove Comey or anybody else that serves "at the pleasure of the President." The President is not like a federal judge at all, and is not required to recuse himself from any decision ever, for reasons that should be obvious.

Dershowitz correctly says that intent is not enough. There must be an illegal action to go with it. If in the Godfather, on the way to the cornfield to whack Paulie Gatto, they had been in a car accident and Paulie was killed, Clemenza would not be guilty of anything, even though he intended to kill Gatto minutes later. The worst that could happen is that his cannoli might be ruined.

If I fire someone because they're black, that turns an originally legal action (firing someone) into an illegal one (discriminating based on race).

If Trump fired Comey because he wanted to halt the Russia investigation, that conceivably turns a legal act (firing a subordinate) into an illegal one (obstruction of justice). It may not be a slam dunk case, but that's an argument I would have no problem making given Trump's public statements.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

The fact that anyone can let trump's activities go where it regards the Russian element is all the proof any breathing person should need to see just how hypocritical the right and republicans are.

While I have no doubt there is ample proof to show trump has violated all sorts of ethics rules and laws -- high crimes and misdemeanors that would be grounds for impeachment, conviction and removal -- I'm willing to say we are not publicly at that point, for the sake of argument. But if 1/100th of this sort of thing was coming out about ANY Democratic president, the most "moderate" republican would be screaming bloody murder. They would have been bringing up the last 70 years of conflict between Russia and the U.S. and telling us that president was guilty of treason. If it was our obviously foreign born, Muslim, terrorist loving previous president, the vitriol would have been so loud and so pervasive, it would have driven some RWNJ to an act of violence directed at Obama. Republican politicians have abandoned patriotism in favor of hypocrisy. Principled and truly patriotic conservatives (and no, you don't get to be considered that just because you wouldn't be caught dead without your American flag lapel pin) have got to step forward before this country I love falls completely off the cliff. If they exist, that is.

Stephen Hawking has warned the human race that it needs to find another place to live within 100 years if it expects to survive. It's completely believable to me that the downfall of American democracy could be the first domino to fall that will leave the Earth uninhabitable by humans in the near future.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Didn't that all stem from Bill trying to play super lawyer and say that his interpretation of the definition caused him to answer the way he did?

"Depends what your definition of is is."

As burd says, obstruction was founded upon other things as well. Clinton allegedly coerced Lewinski and his secretary in their testimony. From what we know now, the former is almost certain to be true, the latter likely true.

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

If I fire someone because they're black, that turns an originally legal action (firing someone) into an illegal one (discriminating based on race).

If Trump fired Comey because he wanted to halt the Russia investigation, that conceivably turns a legal act (firing a subordinate) into an illegal one (obstruction of justice). It may not be a slam dunk case, but that's an argument I would have no problem making given Trump's public statements.

You said it better than WeAreND/Scooby.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

If I fire someone because they're black, that turns an originally legal action (firing someone) into an illegal one (discriminating based on race).

If Trump fired Comey because he wanted to halt the Russia investigation, that conceivably turns a legal act (firing a subordinate) into an illegal one (obstruction of justice). It may not be a slam dunk case, but that's an argument I would have no problem making given Trump's public statements.

Except that firing Comey doesn't halt the Russia investigation. Where's your basis for Trump thinking firing Comey would have that result? If for example, McCabe killed the investigation, then maybe you have something, but I don't see it yet.


Here's a question. Let's say Manafort is talking to his Russian KGB buddy, and the KGB guy says "Hey Paulie, I just happen to have some dirt on the DNC that could help you guys out. And Manafort says, "Gee Ivan, that's nifty! Could you maybe release it next Tuesday? That would be awesome!"

Is that a crime?

[jerphisch]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Except that firing Comey doesn't halt the Russia investigation. Where's your basis for Trump thinking firing Comey would have that result? If for example, McCabe killed the investigation, then maybe you have something, but I don't see it yet.


Here's a question. Let's say Manafort is talking to his Russian KGB buddy, and the KGB guy says "Hey Paulie, I just happen to have some dirt on the DNC that could help you guys out. And Manafort says, "Gee Ivan, that's nifty! Could you maybe release it next Tuesday? That would be awesome!"

Is that a crime?

Trump and his spokespeople have all directly said he fired Comey due to the Russia probe, and with a desire to bring it to an end with his firing. They don't even hide it, and yet here you are ignoring their actual statements.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Trump and his spokespeople have all directly said he fired Comey due to the Russia probe, and with a desire to bring it to an end with his firing. They don't even hide it, and yet here you are ignoring their actual statements.

Could you point me to all these direct statements? I'm guessing there is an aggregation of them somewhere on the internet then that I haven't seen.

[unofan]

Except that firing Comey doesn't halt the Russia investigation. Where's your basis for Trump thinking firing Comey would have that result? If for example, McCabe killed the investigation, then maybe you have something, but I don't see it yet.


Here's a question. Let's say Manafort is talking to his Russian KGB buddy, and the KGB guy says "Hey Paulie, I just happen to have some dirt on the DNC that could help you guys out. And Manafort says, "Gee Ivan, that's nifty! Could you maybe release it next Tuesday? That would be awesome!"

Is that a crime?

It doesn't have to actually halt an investigation to be obstruction of justice. You just have to have the intent and commit an act to further the intent. You don't get saved just because an outside party picks up the slack.

Going back to my discrimination example, if HR steps in and prevents the firing, I still violated the law by attempting to fire someone because they were black and filling out the paperwork to do so.

And in your hypothetical, I could easily argue Manafort engaged in a conspiracy to commit a crime and charge him with that.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Where is the high crime and misdemeanor? You may not like the guy, but incompetency is not grounds for impeachment.

If lying under oath is a high crime and misdemeanor then firing someone for investigating you and threatening them if they testify certainly is. (which is what Brent is saying Trump is doing) Witness tampering is a very serious offense and obstruction of justice are huge crimes.

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

I disagree. A.) There's no evidence Comey's firing hampered the investigation in any way, as testified to before Congress by Andrew McCabe. (In fact it seems probable to have had the opposite effect.) B.) If we're to believe Grassley and Feinstein, Comey confirmed that Trump himself isn't the target of any investigation in a classified briefing. C.) The opinion that Trump shouldn't be allowed to make the decision to fire Comey is just that, an opinion, and it has no basis in law. Trump unequivocally had the power granted to the President to remove Comey or anybody else that serves "at the pleasure of the President." The President is not like a federal judge at all, and is not required to recuse himself from any decision ever, for reasons that should be obvious.

Dershowitz correctly says that intent is not enough. There must be an illegal action to go with it. If in the Godfather, on the way to the cornfield to whack Paulie Gatto, they had been in a car accident and Paulie was killed, Clemenza would not be guilty of anything*, even though he intended to kill Gatto minutes later. The worst that could happen is that his cannoli might be ruined.

* Well, ok... conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, but since Coppola didn't film that part, there's no evidence.

Really? Comey was fired what a day after asking for additional resources to continue the investigation? Now they wont come...would you not say that hampers an investigation?

Intent is not enough to call something a crime you need to have action. Your Godfather example is a good one except for it to parallel you would have to assume Trump fired Comey for no reason whatsoever. If you assume the car accident that killed Paulie wasnt on purpose then you assume Trump had no hidden agenda and no real reason to fire Comey it just happened. We know that isnt true even if you put it in the best light.

Think about it this way, Jeff Sessions technically didnt need to recuse himself from the Russian Investigation (and of course really hasnt since he was supposedly part of the Comey firing) even after it was shown he was linked up too but he still publicly did. Trump should have done the same thing. Personally I dont think it is impeachable, but it is no worse than the crap slung at the Clintons since the mid 90s and we wasted millions looking into their crap.

(unofan said it way better than me anyways)

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

It doesn't have to actually halt an investigation to be obstruction of justice. You just have to have the intent and commit an act to further the intent. You don't get saved just because an outside party picks up the slack.

Going back to my discrimination example, if HR steps in and prevents the firing, I still violated the law by attempting to fire someone because they were black and filling out the paperwork to do so.

And in your hypothetical, I could easily argue Manafort engaged in a conspiracy to commit a crime and charge him with that.

Yes I get that, I was just saying that if firing Comey stopped or slowed the investigation, you'd have a more clear connection and be on more solid ground. But proving Trump thought firing Comey would, as you say, further his intent of stopping the investigation... there doesn't seem to be good reason for him to think it would. Any third party hasn't done anything different then they were already doing. McCabe has testified before Congress that no one has tried in any way to hinder the investigation. McCabe testified (and the justice department said) that the report that Comey had asked for more resources for the investigation is false. Dozens of leading democrats and republicans have called publicly for Comey being out in the last 9 months. Comey had a 17% approval rating with the public. Trump can produce all sorts of arguments for firing Comey and he doesn't even need one. You'd have to prove this one thing was the actual reason, wouldn't you? It's an argument, but proving it seems pretty thin right now. Next week Rosenstien is supposed to go before a Senate committee to talk about Comey's firing. Maybe your case will get some help there.

Thanks for the reply on the hypothetical. I really didn't know. I gather it would hinge on the fact that Ivan had illegally obtained info, or is that not the crux of it?

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.09: How do I hate thee? Let me count the posts.

Could you point me to all these direct statements? I'm guessing there is an aggregation of them somewhere on the internet then that I haven't seen.

In the Lester Holt interview he says that the Russian Probe was part of the decision. His aides tried to cover him by saying it had to do with the emails you all had a hardon for but he said it played a part. Now he is attacking the guy on twitter (like he did Sally Yates) What he said isnt as bad (although it is easy to read between the lines...which you know) as many are making it out to be but it was a stupid mistake to say that which is why it went nuclear.

And going back a few posts to your response to unofan...do you honestly think Trump doesnt assume that Comey being fired would slow down or stop the investigation? Let me guess you also believe Reagan had no idea he was lying to the American people (in a televised address) about the dirty crap they were pulling to right?

Here is a question for you...lets say Governor Mark Dayton is under criminal investigation for money laundering or some such nonsense. (some state matter...leave the feds out of this for this hypothetical) Should it be ok for him to fire the head of the investigation in the middle of the investigation just because he has the right to do so? Personally I say no. The appearance of impropriety is bad enough that such power should not be allowed.