- Moderator
- #61
Civil litigation is irrelevant. We are talking criminal proceedings and we aren't talking against the president.Straight from the Trump playbook... totally ignoring that Trump lied about shutting down the Flynn investigation. And that Comey requested a dinner to save his job.Trump claimed Comey told him three times that hr wasn't under investigation. - comey confirmed it.
Trump claimed he didn't obstruct or impede the investigation. - Comey not only confirmed it, he added that Trump specifically wanted to know if any of his admin was working with Russia.
Trump claimed Comey wasn't fit to continue as direct - Comey confirmed it with his leaking government documents and perjury.
How is that not total vindication? Are you seriously going to claim that trump is being impeached because he said comey wanted to have dinner and comey said it was trump? Get real.
And that it was a total lie that the FBI was disorganized, a mess and Comey didn't have the respect of the agency.
You guys crack me up.
Comey testified that trump didn't try to shut down the Flynn investigation. How is that a lie?
Btw trump is the president he has the authority to shut down investigations id he chooses to.
Comey explained, and Sen. Harris punctuated it when she commented about the Robber holding a gun to a victims head and saying, "I hope you give me your wallet."
Under what authority do you believe a president has the ability to shut down an investigation? I suggest you read Art. II carefully.
He is the executive he has discretion not to mention the pardon
No one is above the law, not even The President.
In Clinton v. Jones POTUS was deemed to have no immunity from Civil Law Litigation.
It seems to me that this finding may come back to haunt President Trump, for misdemeanors and high crimes are generally viewed as more egregious than civil infractions. IF he is tied, before or after the fact, of any collusion by members of his Administration, inner circle or family member he could be found culpable.
It would put the H. or Rep. and in particular Speaker Ryan on a very hot seat.
The president is the executive. As such he has discretion on whom the doj and FBI investigate. Which is why prosecution of the president and his circle is usually prosecuted outside the normal chain of command with a special prosecutor/counsel.
Do you have any idea how many prosecutors across the country would be guilty of obstruction if your interpretation of the statute is adopted?
The fact is he could end the investigation into Flynn today by exercising his pardon power as well. It would cost him politically but he could just like Ford pardoned Nixon.
I don't think its possible for the president to commit obstruction in the normal course of his duties. You'd have to do something like Clinton did and manufacture evidence to get an obstruction charge.