Reply With Quote
i didnt think it was relevant because it was never under dispute whether or not trump used the word "hope" which that exchange just repeats twice
hey hey you kiss your mother with that mouth?
i didnt think it was relevant because it was never under dispute whether or not trump used the word "hope" which that exchange just repeats twice
Never go full re bro.
And you call me the dumbest poster here. LMAO
I hope you answer the question, TSA. Oh, so very hope you do.
It don't matter to me, Recky. I just want to not lose.From your girl that's supposed to mop the floor with Ossoff.
Context is important though. You can't cherry-pick a word and hang the entirety of a case on that one word.
In cases where intent is important (like fraud for example), you rarely-if-ever have direct evidence of the bad/fraudulent intent. People don't admit to like "I did X because I wanted to defraud this person." Instead, you have to look at the surrounding facts and cir stances to deduce what is really going on.
The same is true here. Taken as a whole, there is some indication that Trump may have interfered with an on-going investigation. You might disagree with that, and that's fine. But to hinge the entire assessment on whether something improper occured on a single word is beyond stupid.
I think the revised travel ban will hold up in the Supreme Court, as do many others who didn't think the first one would.
Are you now going to post the dozen articles you promised or welch again?
The whole obstruction of justice issue is a side-show anyway.
If the congress were actually looking to impeach, which they're not, there are other avenues to go other than claiming that Trump committed a felony. Article II, Section 4 indicates that articles of impeachment may issue if the President commits treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
High crimes and misdemeanors is a term of art that, based on a quick internet search, doesn't have much associated case law. But the history surrounding the phrase is pretty instructive:
http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/h...demeanors.htmlThe convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress pe ions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve
Whether or not Trump obstructed the administration of the law is one thing. A much easier case to prove would be to show that Trump's interactions with Comey -- regardless of whether they show beyond a reasonable doubt that he obstructed justice -- nevertheless show such poor judgment that he is unfit to serve.
You will never lose as long as you get to define whether you have won or lost.
No worries.
Life is good for you. Keep it simple.
Google it.
I dont need to hand hold you through every little thing. Or maybe I do.
The latter probably.
It's not just the word it's the events following. Trump said it one time, the day after he fired Flynn. Comey testified to that. Comey also testified not a single head of any other agency nor anyone from the WH or DOJ asked him to do the same. It was never pushed on Comey to drop it.
Curious to hear your thoughts on Trump's ability under the cons ution to shut down the investigation into Flynn had he so wished.
Please hold my hand and fulfill your promise of a dozen articles correctly refuting Dershowitz, or welch, again.
Don't know how to make the polls but who more mad at Trump lawyer tonight?
Trump or TSA?
it gets me every time I see it
Fulfill mono's request and perhaps I will.
You talk about welching but your refusal to do what he's asking is telling. You lost, so the decent thing is to own up and apologize for using fake news.
He also testified to several statements about loyalty coming from Trump, to having a 1-on-1 meeting with Comey to the exclusion of Comey's boss (Sessions), to having 6 or so interactions with Trump in a 4 month span (he had 2 with Obama in a 3 year span).
Do you think any of these interactions were proper?
Short answer is, I don't know. At first blush, I'd guess he has the power, but shouldn't exercise it. I'd imagine the President has the power for really extreme situations -- and this doesn't seem like that.
Independance amongst federal agencies is pretty important in the overall government scheme. That's why people like Comey are appointed for 10 year terms -- so they don't have to satisfy the whims of a politician. Interference with that independance strikes me as highly improper.
But again, I don't know for sure. I haven't done the research. What are your thoughts?
Uh oh.....more meetings with Comey/Lynch coming out
*ding*
TSA Watch your claim go bye bye.
Wonder how ST lawyers spurraider21 vy65 see this as.
Trump's not a seasoned politician so I doubt he saw them as improper. He's still in "business" mode. I wasn't there so can't really comment.
Comey seemed to contradict his written statement today about times with Obama but that's a non-story.
Sounds like we are on the same page. Would have been terrible optics and probably why he didn't do it.Short answer is, I don't know. At first blush, I'd guess he has the power, but shouldn't exercise it. I'd imagine the President has the power for really extreme situations -- and this doesn't seem like that.
Independance amongst federal agencies is pretty important in the overall government scheme. That's why people like Comey are appointed for 10 year terms -- so they don't have to satisfy the whims of a politician. Interference with that independance strikes me as highly improper.
But again, I don't know for sure. I haven't done the research. What are your thoughts?
1. I expect loyalty
2. Drop Flynn investigation
3. It'd be good to get out that I'm not under investigation; but some of my satellite associates may be
4. It'd be good to get out that I'm not under investigation, "because I have been very loyal to you" and "because we had that thing you know.
And another example:
you take advice well
stick with it and your slip ups will be forgotten
You just make comment then say can't comment.
This odd.
That's besides the point. He's the president now. He has obligations that he didn't have as a businessman. He took an oath. His inexperience got him the job -- and the responsibility. He can't hide behind the inexperience.
I didn't ask whether Trump sees it as improper. I'm sure he didn't. But that's besides the point. In any event, do you consider it improper?
Yeah I mean I don't know what to say other than the optics look like that's why he did it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
