So Is the President Above the Law

[busybee01]

That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.

Your thoughts?

Been there, done that. Trump defense will fail miserably.

Feel free to provide a Trump quote that resembles that in any way.


.

Giuliani is saying that a President cannot be subpoenaed. That is patently false.

Really, name one president that ever testified to a grand jury because of a subpoena.


.

The Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against Clinton to go forward. That included a deposition by the opposing lawyers. Any subpoena issued by Mueller would presumably for Trump to be interviewed by Mueller himself.

 

[Bush92]

That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.

Your thoughts?

Been there, done that. Trump defense will fail miserably.

Feel free to provide a Trump quote that resembles that in any way.


.

Giuliani is saying that a President cannot be subpoenaed. That is patently false.

Really, name one president that ever testified to a grand jury because of a subpoena.


.

The Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against Clinton to go forward. That included a deposition by the opposing lawyers. Any subpoena issued by Mueller would presumably for Trump to be interviewed by Mueller himself.

Why would Mueller want to interview Trump? He has said Trump is not a target of investigation. Also, this will be no Watergate. Keep up the wishful thinking. Be sure to watch Trump 2020 victory speech.

 

[busybee01]

That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.

Your thoughts?

No. Neither are special prosecutors when they go off track and turn the investigation into a political vendetta like Starr did and Mueller has done.

Mueller has shown he has no political vendetta. only sick people like you think that.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...l-hack-lawyer-who-donated-to-hillary-clinton/

Trump recently hired a attorney who worked for Bill Clinton. DOJ guidelines allow employees to make political contributions. Again nothing to see here except Trump trash smearing people. Some of them have taken on the mob. They have more courage than scum like you and Trump.

 

[Bush92]

That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.

Your thoughts?

No. Neither are special prosecutors when they go off track and turn the investigation into a political vendetta like Starr did and Mueller has done.

Mueller has shown he has no political vendetta. only sick people like you think that.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...l-hack-lawyer-who-donated-to-hillary-clinton/

Trump recently hired a attorney who worked for Bill Clinton. DOJ guidelines allow employees to make political contributions. Again nothing to see here except Trump trash smearing people. Some of them have taken on the mob. They have more courage than scum like you and Trump.

I served in combat. They are political hacks. Don’t confuse courage and politics.

 

[busybee01]

Been there, done that. Trump defense will fail miserably.

Feel free to provide a Trump quote that resembles that in any way.


.

Giuliani is saying that a President cannot be subpoenaed. That is patently false.

Really, name one president that ever testified to a grand jury because of a subpoena.


.

The Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against Clinton to go forward. That included a deposition by the opposing lawyers. Any subpoena issued by Mueller would presumably for Trump to be interviewed by Mueller himself.

Why would Mueller want to interview Trump? He has said Trump is not a target of investigation. Also, this will be no Watergate. Keep up the wishful thinking. Be sure to watch Trump 2020 victory speech.

Mueller has not said anything. He wants to conclude the obstruction phase of the investigation so since it partially involves Trump, Trump is at least a witness. As to whether it becomes another Watergate, that is up to Trump. Try and fire Mueller and it becomes another Watergate because he will have to fire Rosenstein. Defy a subpoena and it will become a Watergate.

 

[busybee01]

That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.

Your thoughts?

No. Neither are special prosecutors when they go off track and turn the investigation into a political vendetta like Starr did and Mueller has done.

Mueller has shown he has no political vendetta. only sick people like you think that.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...l-hack-lawyer-who-donated-to-hillary-clinton/

Trump recently hired a attorney who worked for Bill Clinton. DOJ guidelines allow employees to make political contributions. Again nothing to see here except Trump trash smearing people. Some of them have taken on the mob. They have more courage than scum like you and Trump.

I served in combat. They are political hacks. Don’t confuse courage and politics.

You are the one who is confusing courage and politics. Enforcing our laws does not make them political hacks. Just because you have lost your right mind does not mean everyone has.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mueller is enforcing the law, the same against a President as against a shoplifter.

busybee01 has done a good job keeping the rage-hate folks gently in line.

 

[OKTexas]

That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.

Your thoughts?

Been there, done that. Trump defense will fail miserably.

Feel free to provide a Trump quote that resembles that in any way.


.

Giuliani is saying that a President cannot be subpoenaed. That is patently false.

Really, name one president that ever testified to a grand jury because of a subpoena.


.

The Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit against Clinton to go forward. That included a deposition by the opposing lawyers. Any subpoena issued by Mueller would presumably for Trump to be interviewed by Mueller himself.

So you can't name one, thanks for playing.


.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Trump attorney who made the original deal made it clear that this needed to be done before the election because Trump did not want it coming out before the election.

Also the money would have to be reported as a loan to his campaign. Of course Trump could claim he gave $130,000 to Cohen and had no idea what it was uses from. This from someone who has refused to pay legitimate bills that are like a couple of dollars to us.

That dog won't hunt.

Yes, it would have to be reported as a loan to his campaign unless it wasn't a loan to his campaign.

 

[IsaacNewton]

That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.

Your thoughts?

Even the question should not be one anyone would ever ask.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.

Your thoughts?

Hillary is.

 

[2aguy]

That appears to be where he Trump defense is headed.

Your thoughts?

Been there, done that. Trump defense will fail miserably.

Feel free to provide a Trump quote that resembles that in any way.


.

How about "I could shoot someone on the street and not lose support."?

That was said as a candidate, not as president. Care to try again?


.

No, I effectively made no my point. Trump believes he is above the law, regardless of job title.

How does he show this exactly? Since he keeps appealing to the courts....

 

[2aguy]

This is just like the gun control debate with left wingers...

"Trump things he is above the law!!!!!"

Why do you think this?

Because...he like....thinks he is above the law....

How does he show this?

By....like...thinking he is above the law.....

Repeat....repeat....repeat....

 

[Seawytch]

where is the evidence of that? Its just comey's word and we know that Comey is a liar, that is well established.

Now, shall we discuss the obstruction of justice by Obama, lynch, comey, Clinton, McCabe, Holder. No? didn't think so.

Comey kept contemporaneous memos when it happened and shared this with his co-workers. He also TESTIFIED UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS.

On the other side of that we have public denials of pathological liar Trump and dupes like you.

And the contemporaneous notes taken by someone he told, echo Comey's notes taken at the time. Comey would be quite happy if there were tapes of the conversation. That's not the statements of someone who thinks he will be caught lying.

Top ex-DOJ official's notes appear to corroborate James Comey's testimony on Trump

Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later," Comey said of the late-March encounter to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing June of 2017. Sessions had already by that point recused himself of all Russia-related investigations.

In the Boente's handwritten notes obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Boente said, "cloud as a result of Russia business. This makes running the country difficult," echoing the exact words Comey had told congressional investigators.

Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.


.

No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)

You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?

A perfect example of circular reasoning, I create a story, tell it to you and you swear to it. For that to have any validity you must first prove the original story was accurate. Considering Comey has proven himself to be a self serving flake, I think you'd have a hard time making any case for its accuracy.


.

No, it's an example of logic. There is a meeting with two people. One of them leaves the meeting and tells multiple people what transpired AND they write it down. The people they told ALSO wrote down what is said. It's called corroborating testimony. Guess which side of the story is more believable?

 

[blackhawk]

No he's not having said that he has not been charged with any crime.

 

[OKTexas]

Comey kept contemporaneous memos when it happened and shared this with his co-workers. He also TESTIFIED UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS.

On the other side of that we have public denials of pathological liar Trump and dupes like you.

And the contemporaneous notes taken by someone he told, echo Comey's notes taken at the time. Comey would be quite happy if there were tapes of the conversation. That's not the statements of someone who thinks he will be caught lying.

Top ex-DOJ official's notes appear to corroborate James Comey's testimony on Trump

Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later," Comey said of the late-March encounter to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing June of 2017. Sessions had already by that point recused himself of all Russia-related investigations.

In the Boente's handwritten notes obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Boente said, "cloud as a result of Russia business. This makes running the country difficult," echoing the exact words Comey had told congressional investigators.

Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.


.

No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)

You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?

A perfect example of circular reasoning, I create a story, tell it to you and you swear to it. For that to have any validity you must first prove the original story was accurate. Considering Comey has proven himself to be a self serving flake, I think you'd have a hard time making any case for its accuracy.


.

No, it's an example of logic. There is a meeting with two people. One of them leaves the meeting and tells multiple people what transpired AND they write it down. The people they told ALSO wrote down what is said. It's called corroborating testimony. Guess which side of the story is more believable?

No, it's still a case of conflicting stories by the two individuals who were actually involved in the conversation. In a court of law the rest is hearsay and hearsay isn't admissible.

.

 

[Dana7360]

Obstruction of justice 18 U.S.C. § 1503

whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)."

By asking Comey to drop Flynn's case while knowing full well that Flynn commited perjury Trump has clearly endeavored to corruptly influence an officer of the law.

P.S. STFU

where is the evidence of that? Its just comey's word and we know that Comey is a liar, that is well established.

Now, shall we discuss the obstruction of justice by Obama, lynch, comey, Clinton, McCabe, Holder. No? didn't think so.

Comey kept contemporaneous memos when it happened and shared this with his co-workers. He also TESTIFIED UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS.

On the other side of that we have public denials of pathological liar Trump and dupes like you.

And the contemporaneous notes taken by someone he told, echo Comey's notes taken at the time. Comey would be quite happy if there were tapes of the conversation. That's not the statements of someone who thinks he will be caught lying.

Top ex-DOJ official's notes appear to corroborate James Comey's testimony on Trump

Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later," Comey said of the late-March encounter to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing June of 2017. Sessions had already by that point recused himself of all Russia-related investigations.

In the Boente's handwritten notes obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Boente said, "cloud as a result of Russia business. This makes running the country difficult," echoing the exact words Comey had told congressional investigators.

Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.


.

No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)

You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?

The thing is, Steele didn't give that dossier to the FBI.

John McCain did.

John McCain passes dossier alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts to FBI

 

[Seawytch]

And the contemporaneous notes taken by someone he told, echo Comey's notes taken at the time. Comey would be quite happy if there were tapes of the conversation. That's not the statements of someone who thinks he will be caught lying.

Top ex-DOJ official's notes appear to corroborate James Comey's testimony on Trump

Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later," Comey said of the late-March encounter to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing June of 2017. Sessions had already by that point recused himself of all Russia-related investigations.

In the Boente's handwritten notes obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Boente said, "cloud as a result of Russia business. This makes running the country difficult," echoing the exact words Comey had told congressional investigators.

Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.


.

No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)

You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?

A perfect example of circular reasoning, I create a story, tell it to you and you swear to it. For that to have any validity you must first prove the original story was accurate. Considering Comey has proven himself to be a self serving flake, I think you'd have a hard time making any case for its accuracy.


.

No, it's an example of logic. There is a meeting with two people. One of them leaves the meeting and tells multiple people what transpired AND they write it down. The people they told ALSO wrote down what is said. It's called corroborating testimony. Guess which side of the story is more believable?

No, it's still a case of conflicting stories by the two individuals who were actually involved in the conversation. In a court of law the rest is hearsay and hearsay isn't admissible.

.

Wrong. Contemporaneous notes and corroborating testimony are admissible. There is also the credibility thing. Donald Trump is a known liar. A liar who borders on pathological.

 

[OKTexas]

where is the evidence of that? Its just comey's word and we know that Comey is a liar, that is well established.

Now, shall we discuss the obstruction of justice by Obama, lynch, comey, Clinton, McCabe, Holder. No? didn't think so.

Comey kept contemporaneous memos when it happened and shared this with his co-workers. He also TESTIFIED UNDER OATH BEFORE CONGRESS.

On the other side of that we have public denials of pathological liar Trump and dupes like you.

And the contemporaneous notes taken by someone he told, echo Comey's notes taken at the time. Comey would be quite happy if there were tapes of the conversation. That's not the statements of someone who thinks he will be caught lying.

Top ex-DOJ official's notes appear to corroborate James Comey's testimony on Trump

Immediately after that conversation, I called Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, to report the substance of the call from the President, and said I would await his guidance. I did not hear back from him before the President called me again two weeks later," Comey said of the late-March encounter to the Senate Intelligence Committee during a hearing June of 2017. Sessions had already by that point recused himself of all Russia-related investigations.

In the Boente's handwritten notes obtained by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Boente said, "cloud as a result of Russia business. This makes running the country difficult," echoing the exact words Comey had told congressional investigators.

Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.


.

No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)

You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?

The thing is, Steele didn't give that dossier to the FBI.

John McCain did.

John McCain passes dossier alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts to FBI

And, the FBI subsequently vouched for Steele, hired him and then fired him for leaking to the press. They used his leaked stories to bolster their FISA application claiming the news stories corroborated the dossier, without telling the court both originated from the same source.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Two stories, same origin. Kind of like Steele giving the dossier to the FBI and then telling the same story to the media. Then the media story was used to bolster the dossier in the FISA application as a separate source.


.

No. It's like you and I having a conversation. When we are done, I immediately write down what you said and tell someone who also writes it down at that time. (That is what contemporaneous means.)

You didn't write anything down or tell anyone at the time. Which side of our conversation is more likely to stand up in court?

A perfect example of circular reasoning, I create a story, tell it to you and you swear to it. For that to have any validity you must first prove the original story was accurate. Considering Comey has proven himself to be a self serving flake, I think you'd have a hard time making any case for its accuracy.


.

No, it's an example of logic. There is a meeting with two people. One of them leaves the meeting and tells multiple people what transpired AND they write it down. The people they told ALSO wrote down what is said. It's called corroborating testimony. Guess which side of the story is more believable?

No, it's still a case of conflicting stories by the two individuals who were actually involved in the conversation. In a court of law the rest is hearsay and hearsay isn't admissible.

.

Wrong. Contemporaneous notes and corroborating testimony are admissible. There is also the credibility thing. Donald Trump is a known liar. A liar who borders on pathological.

Sorry child, corroborating testimony comes form people inside the room where the conversation occurred. Comey could write and brief any self serving crap he wants to invent. It's already been proven he's not above that. Funny how he only provided copies of his "memos" to people he's hired as his lawyers. I wonder if they've realized yet that he put them in a position of receiving stolen government property. Regardless of their accuracy the "memos" are FBI work product and are property of the US.


.