President Trump- The Implications

[heironymouspasparagus]

No evidence as of about a month ago.  There is still a long ways to go.

[guido911]

No evidence as of about a month ago.  There is still a long ways to go.

I hate, HATE to agree with Lindsey Graham. But he's right about one thing. If there was an obstruction case against Trump, NO WAY does Mueller allow Comey to testify.

[swake]

[heironymouspasparagus]

I hate, HATE to agree with Lindsey Graham. But he's right about one thing. If there was an obstruction case against Trump, NO WAY does Mueller allow Comey to testify.

Yeah.  That would make the most sense.  But then, how would he stop him?  Especially if the committee subpoenaed him?  Make it all closed door??  No public...?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I really want to hear that song!   I would probably actually buy it....use it for a ring tone on my phone...

[heironymouspasparagus]

In case you missed the Comey hearing, here's the summary:


Comey: The president makes lies when he talks and did the bad thing everyone thinks he did.

Everyone: *gasp gasp oh smile*

Trump Fans: THAT DONT MEAN NOTHIN.

Republican Senators: What about how hillary clinton did a bad thing?

Comey: ...

Democrat senators: Did the president do the VERY BAD THING!? Will you say so!??!

Comey: I can't say that, it's a special kind of fbi secret

Republican Senators: Are you like....SURE he did the bad thing?

Comey: Yeah, he obviously did the bad thing.

Democrat Senators: Would you say we should under arrest him for doing the bad thing?

Comey: That's not my job to say. I got fired from being a policeman for telling on him doing the bad thing. Now there's another old man special policeman who will help you do it.

Senators: So is russia doing a bad?

Comey: Yeah, Russia is doing such a bad.

John McCain: I'll have the soup

Comey: Here is your soup, sir.

John McCain: Seems like a double standard

Comey: For the soup?

McCain: Who are you? I'm cold. Is this my house?

[erfalf]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ing_party.html

This is why you can't read slate. I think Slate determines the law by their own feelings. Not once did he reference a statute that would have been broken. But he went on and on about the "rule of law".

Couple of points.

1. The FBI director reports to the Attorney General who then reports to the President. They are ALL within the Executive Branch. So there is no real separation of powers here. It's nice to think there is, and I'm sure that's what columnists at Slate think is the "rule of law" and everything, but it's not reality. The president can and does direct the Justice Department. What he cannot do is direct them to do things that are unconstitutional. Like if he says "I want more blacks prosecuted for x crime". That's unconstitutional. But if he says, "I want to prosecute more federal drug crimes" or "I want to basically ignore some crimes more often than not" (think Sanctuary cities) . That is just fine. Or if he says "I don't want you investigating Michael Flynn, this also is perfectly constitutional, and NOT against the law.

2. If Trump were more eloquent, he could have just said, look I'm gonna pardon Flynn anyway, so you might as well move on. This has happened and will happen in the future. It's a Presidential power, and it basically would have ended the discussion.

3. Comey was concerned Trump would lie (which is a valid concern) so he took notes. However he also discusses how he didn't take notes about meeting with Lynch even after she INSTRUCTED HIM TO LIE. pancakes. Comey did his best to prosecute Trump in the court of public opinion, but in the end, it forced him to look cowardly and weak and selectively (politically) motivated.

4. If the FBI director feels the President is being unreasonable, or potentially acting illegally, what is his/her outlet? Obviously, the AG is going to be appointed by the President, so I understand the fear of compromise there. There has to be an outlet that doesn't involve the New York (In The Main, It was not true) Times. That just doesn't seem right.

And I know this is posted on Fox news, but it's Dershowitz and I couldn't find it anywhere else real quickly. He seems to be about the only one (besides Chris Matthews surprisingly) that understand a crime was not even insinuated yesterday.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...are-wrong.html

[Conan71]

So, long and short of it is, there doesn't appear to have been obstruction of justice.

Trump supporters still think he's great or even better now.

His detractors still think he sucks.

In other words, nothing has changed.

[guido911]

Everyone sucks. Start there Conan.

[Ed W]

In other words, nothing has changed.

Comey's testimony is becoming a kind of Rohrshact test where people see what they want to see.

[Hoss]

Comey's testimony is becoming a kind of Rohrshact test where people see what they want to see.

Exactly.  The investigation isn't exactly over.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Boy, did Hamilton get it wrong....


"The process of election affords a moral certainty," Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68, "that the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."

[heironymouspasparagus]

So, long and short of it is, there doesn't appear to have been obstruction of justice.

A real investigation has yet to be done.  All he said was that none had been found as of a month ago.  And that Trump was not being investigated a month ago.  We don't know about today or the future.

[guido911]

A real investigation has yet to be done.  All he said was that none had been found as of a month ago.  And that Trump was not being investigated a month ago.  We don't know about today or the future.

We all know there is still time to prove Trump obstructed justice and did all sorts of mean things--five months into his presidency. How bad is it that this is all that many in this forum obsess about? Yep. Trump obstructed justice-even though he had zero motive and nothing to gain.

But when this is all that you have going for you, I guess...

[swake]

We all know there is still time to prove Trump obstructed justice and did all sorts of mean things--five months into his presidency. How bad is it that this is all that many in this forum obsess about? Yep. Trump obstructed justice-even though he had zero motive and nothing to gain.

But when this is all that you have going for you, I guess...

You must keep a large photo of Trump's big orange head on your nightstand to kiss each evening before you go nite nite...