The Definition of Obstruction of Justice--question

[ClosedCaption]

So, the meeting on the tarmac in phenoix would qualify too. Yes?

Meeting? No. Asking to let it go? Yes.

Incorrect!

Duckspeak

 

[Lewdog]

Flynn lied to the FBI about talking to the Russians. They have him on phone calls with the Russian Ambassador talking about the Sanctions on Russia... when he was still just a fucking citizen and not a representative of the U.S. government. This isn't a deflection. Trump asked the fucking head of the FBI to stop the investigation of Flynn because he fired him, and he thought that would be good enough.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT OBAMA, SETH RICH, OR THE DNC. Go start your own fucking thread to talk about that shit. This isn't the place for it.

No, again you are wrong......he never said that he didn't speak to a Russian ambassador and he did not have the authority as a PRIVATE citizen to say that the unjustified sanctions would be lifted. Sanctions (in the true sense of the word) were not discussed. The Russian ambassador brought up the topic and Flynn was non-committal. Now, how did the NSA and CIA know this? Because they were illegally spying on a private citizen.\

BTW, I will post a y fucking thing that I want WHEN I want, ya little fucking weasel. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can or cannot post? The internet is a great thing for gutless little pussies like you that spew shit in cyberville that you wouldn't dare do in real time....at least to someone like me because you would be sucking your meals through a straw afterwards.

How did they know what he said? Because they heard half the conversation, which was a Russian Ambassador talking about sanctions on Russia with a private citizen, which was illegal for that PRIVATE CITIZEN to do, so therefor the only way to investigate it was to unmask him. Do you think your ridiculous insults confirm your point of view? They don't... I hate to inform you. Now go back to reading and studying your stupid conspiracy theories. And yes, Flynn did lie about talking to the Russians, why the fuck do you think he got fired dumbass?

If they only heard half of the conversation, then how do they know what Flynn said? BECAUSE HE WAS BEING SPIED ON, dumb ass. It not illegal for Flynn to talk to anyone he damned well pleased, fuckwad. I know exactly what I am talking about while you haven't the faintest clue. Flynn was caught in a "gotcha" game by the illegal survelliance where the question was Did you discuss lifting sanctions to the Russian ambassador?" to which Flynn said no....which he didn't...the ambassador ASKED about the sanctions so is that "discussing" them when Flynn wouldn't have the power to do so? BTW, John Podesta took in MILLIONS of dollars from Russia in an attempt to get the sanctions taken off of them that should have never been imposed to begin with. Educating your stupid ass is like trying to teach a shit smearing, mongoloid retard on how to use a pair of pliers.....it's simply a waste of time and effort. At least others can be amused at how I smack the shit out of you as you whine "Stop talking about things I know nothing about"......which encompasses SOOOOO many things.

No dumbass, because they know the number the Russian Ambassador was talking to and that it wasn't a number of a person he should be talking about that stuff with. For a person that professes to be so smart, you sure are one dense fuck.

HOLY shit.....just when I think you can come across as any dumber? You go and lower the bar............(face palm)....why do I even bother? You don't have the slightest fucking clue and here I am wasting time on someone with someone that would be lucky to score in the high 70's on a basic I.Q test................waste 'o' time.......

Great rebuttal. You are about the most ignorant piece of slime to crawl out of the water yet. The intelligence community regularly monitors foreign representatives communications... that would include WHAT NUMBER they call. Do you think they don't fucking know what phone numbers should be talking with the Russian Ambassador? So when they are monitoring a call from the Russian Ambassador and he starts talking about U.S. sanctions on Russia... to a person on a phone number that isn't a phone number of someone he should be discussing that with, that's fucking grounds for unmasking that person to find out who they are talking to. And guess what numbnuts, Flynn was a PRIVATE citizen and was not authorized to be making deals on behalf of the government at the time, a direct violation of federal laws. But then again you don't fucking believe in the GUBERMINT, so you obviously don't understand. Now go suck on your thumb while you jack off to some Youtube video about a false flag event involving someone taking a shit at a Walmart without flushing. I'm done with your dumbass, and you've reached the point of going on my ignore list. At one point in your life your brain has been deprived of oxygen and you are now officially mentally handicapped.

 

[Dale Smith]

No, again you are wrong......he never said that he didn't speak to a Russian ambassador and he did not have the authority as a PRIVATE citizen to say that the unjustified sanctions would be lifted. Sanctions (in the true sense of the word) were not discussed. The Russian ambassador brought up the topic and Flynn was non-committal. Now, how did the NSA and CIA know this? Because they were illegally spying on a private citizen.\

BTW, I will post a y fucking thing that I want WHEN I want, ya little fucking weasel. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can or cannot post? The internet is a great thing for gutless little pussies like you that spew shit in cyberville that you wouldn't dare do in real time....at least to someone like me because you would be sucking your meals through a straw afterwards.

How did they know what he said? Because they heard half the conversation, which was a Russian Ambassador talking about sanctions on Russia with a private citizen, which was illegal for that PRIVATE CITIZEN to do, so therefor the only way to investigate it was to unmask him. Do you think your ridiculous insults confirm your point of view? They don't... I hate to inform you. Now go back to reading and studying your stupid conspiracy theories. And yes, Flynn did lie about talking to the Russians, why the fuck do you think he got fired dumbass?

If they only heard half of the conversation, then how do they know what Flynn said? BECAUSE HE WAS BEING SPIED ON, dumb ass. It not illegal for Flynn to talk to anyone he damned well pleased, fuckwad. I know exactly what I am talking about while you haven't the faintest clue. Flynn was caught in a "gotcha" game by the illegal survelliance where the question was Did you discuss lifting sanctions to the Russian ambassador?" to which Flynn said no....which he didn't...the ambassador ASKED about the sanctions so is that "discussing" them when Flynn wouldn't have the power to do so? BTW, John Podesta took in MILLIONS of dollars from Russia in an attempt to get the sanctions taken off of them that should have never been imposed to begin with. Educating your stupid ass is like trying to teach a shit smearing, mongoloid retard on how to use a pair of pliers.....it's simply a waste of time and effort. At least others can be amused at how I smack the shit out of you as you whine "Stop talking about things I know nothing about"......which encompasses SOOOOO many things.

No dumbass, because they know the number the Russian Ambassador was talking to and that it wasn't a number of a person he should be talking about that stuff with. For a person that professes to be so smart, you sure are one dense fuck.

HOLY shit.....just when I think you can come across as any dumber? You go and lower the bar............(face palm)....why do I even bother? You don't have the slightest fucking clue and here I am wasting time on someone with someone that would be lucky to score in the high 70's on a basic I.Q test................waste 'o' time.......

Great rebuttal. You are about the most ignorant piece of slime to crawl out of the water yet. The intelligence community regularly monitors foreign representatives communications... that would include WHAT NUMBER they call. Do you think they don't fucking know what phone numbers should be talking with the Russian Ambassador? So when they are monitoring a call from the Russian Ambassador and he starts talking about U.S. sanctions on Russia... to a person on a phone number that isn't a phone number of someone he should be discussing that with, that's fucking grounds for unmasking that person to find out who they are talking to. And guess what numbnuts, Flynn was a PRIVATE citizen and was not authorized to be making deals on behalf of the government at the time, a direct violation of federal laws. But then again you don't fucking believe in the GUBERMINT, so you obviously don't understand. Now go suck on your thumb while you jack off to some Youtube video about a false flag event involving someone taking a shit at a Walmart without flushing. I'm done with your dumbass, and you've reached the point of going on my ignore list. At one point in your life your brain has been deprived of oxygen and you are now officially mentally handicapped.

 

[candycorn]

Boy, no Reality Winner threads this evening... You can pretty much tell when the right wing loons are in spin mode...they forget the previous shiny object

 

[Dale Smith]

No, again you are wrong......he never said that he didn't speak to a Russian ambassador and he did not have the authority as a PRIVATE citizen to say that the unjustified sanctions would be lifted. Sanctions (in the true sense of the word) were not discussed. The Russian ambassador brought up the topic and Flynn was non-committal. Now, how did the NSA and CIA know this? Because they were illegally spying on a private citizen.\

BTW, I will post a y fucking thing that I want WHEN I want, ya little fucking weasel. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can or cannot post? The internet is a great thing for gutless little pussies like you that spew shit in cyberville that you wouldn't dare do in real time....at least to someone like me because you would be sucking your meals through a straw afterwards.

How did they know what he said? Because they heard half the conversation, which was a Russian Ambassador talking about sanctions on Russia with a private citizen, which was illegal for that PRIVATE CITIZEN to do, so therefor the only way to investigate it was to unmask him. Do you think your ridiculous insults confirm your point of view? They don't... I hate to inform you. Now go back to reading and studying your stupid conspiracy theories. And yes, Flynn did lie about talking to the Russians, why the fuck do you think he got fired dumbass?

If they only heard half of the conversation, then how do they know what Flynn said? BECAUSE HE WAS BEING SPIED ON, dumb ass. It not illegal for Flynn to talk to anyone he damned well pleased, fuckwad. I know exactly what I am talking about while you haven't the faintest clue. Flynn was caught in a "gotcha" game by the illegal survelliance where the question was Did you discuss lifting sanctions to the Russian ambassador?" to which Flynn said no....which he didn't...the ambassador ASKED about the sanctions so is that "discussing" them when Flynn wouldn't have the power to do so? BTW, John Podesta took in MILLIONS of dollars from Russia in an attempt to get the sanctions taken off of them that should have never been imposed to begin with. Educating your stupid ass is like trying to teach a shit smearing, mongoloid retard on how to use a pair of pliers.....it's simply a waste of time and effort. At least others can be amused at how I smack the shit out of you as you whine "Stop talking about things I know nothing about"......which encompasses SOOOOO many things.

No dumbass, because they know the number the Russian Ambassador was talking to and that it wasn't a number of a person he should be talking about that stuff with. For a person that professes to be so smart, you sure are one dense fuck.

HOLY shit.....just when I think you can come across as any dumber? You go and lower the bar............(face palm)....why do I even bother? You don't have the slightest fucking clue and here I am wasting time on someone with someone that would be lucky to score in the high 70's on a basic I.Q test................waste 'o' time.......

Great rebuttal. You are about the most ignorant piece of slime to crawl out of the water yet. The intelligence community regularly monitors foreign representatives communications... that would include WHAT NUMBER they call. Do you think they don't fucking know what phone numbers should be talking with the Russian Ambassador? So when they are monitoring a call from the Russian Ambassador and he starts talking about U.S. sanctions on Russia... to a person on a phone number that isn't a phone number of someone he should be discussing that with, that's fucking grounds for unmasking that person to find out who they are talking to. And guess what numbnuts, Flynn was a PRIVATE citizen and was not authorized to be making deals on behalf of the government at the time, a direct violation of federal laws. But then again you don't fucking believe in the GUBERMINT, so you obviously don't understand. Now go suck on your thumb while you jack off to some Youtube video about a false flag event involving someone taking a shit at a Walmart without flushing. I'm done with your dumbass, and you've reached the point of going on my ignore list. At one point in your life your brain has been deprived of oxygen and you are now officially mentally handicapped.

Hey, you retarded POS....the NSA has been doing that for the last 16 years....you think that a former officer of an intel agency didn't know that he was under the microscope? That just goes to show what an incredibly stupid pile of feces that you actually are. Flynn made no deals, ya numb fuck......."Ignore" me to your heart's content but the problem is that I will continue to expose your stupidity to the amusement of the masses. You will simply be spared of having to read about the ass-whippings I put to your futile attempts to debate. I know more than you and it galls you.....good!

(snicker)

 

[WelfareQueen]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

Candy....do all of these Trump threads you're generating make you feel better? I sure hope so. I guess after your multiple predictions of a massive Hillary victory this is all you have left. Call it weak sloppy seconds.

 

[Dale Smith]

Boy, no Reality Winner threads this evening... You can pretty much tell when the right wing loons are in spin mode...they forget the previous shiny object

"Boy", candycorn is struggling with the fact this the politcal party that he has touted has become irrelevant after his predictions if a Hildebeast win and how the leftard clown posse would take back the House and Senate of bought and paid for shills of the owners of USA.INC........"candycorn's" paradigm has been shattered and all he can do is swing his little cyber purse with indignant outrage....good luck with all that, "snowflake"...

(snicker)

 

[candycorn]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

Candy....do all of these Trump threads you're generating make you feel better? I sure hope so. I guess after your multiple predictions of a massive Hillary victory this is all you have left. Call it weak sloppy seconds.

[
"Scott Walker is perfect for what we need done in this Country. Perfect."
I couldn't agree more....

Trump is closer to Clinton than Walker ever has been. Enjoy your "victory" as we will still have most of the Obamacare mandates and the insurance requirements....

 

[Dale Smith]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

Candy....do all of these Trump threads you're generating make you feel better? I sure hope so. I guess after your multiple predictions of a massive Hillary victory this is all you have left. Call it weak sloppy seconds.

[
"Scott Walker is perfect for what we need done in this Country. Perfect."
I couldn't agree more....

Trump is closer to Clinton than Walker ever has been. Enjoy your "victory" as we will still have most of the Obamacare mandates and the insurance requirements....

I don't comply nor will I ever..........millions just like me.

 

[OKTexas]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

 

[candycorn]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

There will be no complaint from Comey about obstruction of justice. Aside from the fact that there isn't any, if Comey states that he identified the statement regarding Flynn as obstruction, then Comey has admitted to a felony. He should have immediately reported this crime to the attorney general.

If Comey says that he didn't think it was obstruction at the time, but later figured it out, then Comey has admitted being incompetent and Trump was right to fire him.

This time tomorrow, democrats will be calling him phoney Comey.

 

[OKTexas]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

Theoretically, yes. But as you regressives said over and over about your dear leaders EOs, the president has prosecutorial discretion just like any federal prosecutor does. He can make a determination if it would be in the governments interest to continue a particular prosecution. Remember, Comey stated Trump himself was NOT a target of any investigation, so he would be making the determination relating to others, not himself.


.

 

[candycorn]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

There will be no complaint from Comey about obstruction of justice. Aside from the fact that there isn't any, if Comey states that he identified the statement regarding Flynn as obstruction, then Comey has admitted to a felony. He should have immediately reported this crime to the attorney general.

If Comey says that he didn't think it was obstruction at the time, but later figured it out, then Comey has admitted being incompetent and Trump was right to fire him.

This time tomorrow, democrats will be calling him phoney Comey.

Not a Dem but I have been saying he's been all over the map for months.

Again, Witnesses do not make accusations or complaints. That is for the officers of the court. Christ you're stupid.

 

[candycorn]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

Theoretically, yes.
.

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

 

[OKTexas]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

Theoretically, yes.
.

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him? Your willful ignorance and partisan hackery is starting to get old. Get back to me when you have something real.


.

 

[candycorn]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

Theoretically, yes.
.

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him?
.

For firing the FBI direction when he didn't "drop" the investigation into a top Trump aide. Do try to keep up.

 

[OKTexas]

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

Theoretically, yes.
.

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him?
.

For firing the FBI direction when he didn't "drop" the investigation into a top Trump aide. Do try to keep up.

Really, what were they investigating, it's already been made clear there was no collusion with the Russian hacking. If Flynn fibbed to the FBI about his conversation with the Russian ambassador and they wanted to prosecute him for that, wouldn't charges already have been filed? It's been more than 5 months since he was interviewed. So what specifically are they investigating?


.

 

[candycorn]

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

Theoretically, yes.
.

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him?
.

For firing the FBI direction when he didn't "drop" the investigation into a top Trump aide. Do try to keep up.

Really, what were they investigating, it's already been made clear there was no collusion with the Russian hacking. If Flynn fibbed to the FBI about his conversation with the Russian ambassador and they wanted to prosecute him for that, wouldn't charges already have been filed? It's been more than 5 months since he was interviewed. So what specifically are they investigating?
.

Probably why nearly everyone in the Trump campaign lied about having contact with high ranked Russian officials at some time or the other. So much so that a special prosecutor was named to get to the bottom of this scandal. The OOJ that he created by firing the FBI director is another scandal. Again, do try to keep up.

 

[Mac1958]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

Theoretically, yes.
.

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him? Your willful ignorance and partisan hackery is starting to get old. Get back to me when you have something real.


.

This is politics. Nothing is real.

The goal here is to damage Trump so that congressional Republicans won't help him push his agenda, and to make strides in 2018 & 2020.

Fer fuck's sake, let's just be honest about this. This is the only play the Dems have, and they're doing a pretty good job. They've got an easy target.

If the GOP were in the same position, they'd be doing precisely the same thing.

Which, of course, is the problem.
.