President can intervene on all federal investigations except where impeachment is involved. He's the head of the executive branch, nothing wrong with that. You don't like it then fight for an amendment to change it.You're diverting away from the fact that the Russians went to a great deal of trouble to mess with Americans' minds & facilitate the election of Trump. You're also diverting away from the fact that Flynn & Sessions both lied about their dealings with the Russians. You're diverting away from the fact that Trump apparently attempted to intervene on Flynn's behalf.
President can intervene on all federal investigations except where impeachment is involved. He's the head of the executive branch, nothing wrong with that. You don't like it then fight for an amendment to change it.
But I was asked a question, how can answering it be an attempt to change the subject? And it hasn't been proven that Sessions had "dealings" with Russians, that is your fantasy.
Where do I say 100% no evidence?
You people need some reality. There is no evidence of this insane conspiracy the left is hoping beyond hope is true.
What is a birther though? If its anybody with less than 100% certainty that Obama was born in Hawaii then I'm a birther.
President can intervene on all federal investigations except where impeachment is involved. He's the head of the executive branch, nothing wrong with that. You don't like it then fight for an amendment to change it.
But I was asked a question, how can answering it be an attempt to change the subject? And it hasn't been proven that Sessions had "dealings" with Russians, that is your fantasy.
Regardless, Deputy AG did tell him to fire him.
Directing people who work under him isn't obstruction of justice. I didn't bring up birtherism.Obviously incorrect. The President is not above the Law. He can't obstruct Justice.
Sessions admitted that he had a meeting with Kislyak in his own office even though he specifically denied such a thing occurred in sworn testimony before the Senate.
Birtherism has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
And Trump simply "hoped" Comey could let the Flynn investigation go, he didn't order him to do so. Right?Actually, he didn't recommend anything in his letter. It was pointed out at the time as well. He listed his concerns, but made no conclusions or recommendations.
Ahhh, you must have some actual evidence of this collusion. Where is it?you seem to love bathing in the Trump/Russia collusion, the only question is why?
you are a proud traitor, comrade.
Just brace yourself, obstruction isn't going anywhere. And remember that impeachment isn't enough for removal, ask Bill Clinton. No way Trump would get 2/3rds of the senate to vote for obstruction based on what he might have said to Comey about Flynn.If Trump gets impeached for obstruction of justice, I'm throwing a party. Not because I hate the guy, but because it'll be so absurd and self-inflicted there's nothing to do but laugh.
You're being a willful [insert insult here, your choice but make it colorful]. It's such a ridiculous thing that you want to believe there is any equivocation in Trumps words. Geezus, even you know that he expected Comey to do exactly as he told him no matter the words he chose. How do you separate hope/non-compliance/you're-fired?And Trump simply "hoped" Comey could let the Flynn investigation go, he didn't order him to do so. Right?
Directing people who work under him isn't obstruction of justice. I didn't bring up birtherism.
Yes it is. Telling people who work under you to drop an investigation for some personal or corrupt gain under threat of retribution is obstruction of justice. For reference, look up the watergate scandal.Directing people who work under him isn't obstruction of justice.
Again, would pardoning Flynn have been obstruction of justice? That would have ended any investigation into the Flynn matter.Yes it is. Telling people who work under you to drop an investigation for some personal or corrupt gain under threat of retribution is obstruction of justice. For reference, look up the watergate scandal.
Having an investigation dropped to save a guilty friend from facing jail time or to preserve political power or to prevent other political crimes from coming to light is directly obstruction of justice.
The only way it's not obstruction of justice is if some perfectly valid reason is found to where Trump was completely justified asking for it to be dropped; and the reality is if such a reason was present there would be no reason to even ask: the investigation would simply fizzle out on its own.
Yes it is.None of that is really true, certainly not as it applies to the current situation.
Stop please. Don't you wish to be smart? Seriously, I think you're capable. <--- that's a backhanded compliment.Again, would pardoning Flynn have been obstruction of justice? That would have ended any investigation into the Flynn matter.
Again, would pardoning Flynn have been obstruction of justice? That would have ended any investigation into the Flynn matter.
We don't have any indication of that here in any case.Yes it is. Telling people who work under you to drop an investigation for some personal or corrupt gain under threat of retribution is obstruction of justice. For reference, look up the watergate scandal.
How do you know what the intent was?Having an investigation dropped to save a guilty friend from facing jail time or to preserve political power or to prevent other political crimes from coming to light is directly obstruction of justice.
Which it did.The only way it's not obstruction of justice is if some perfectly valid reason is found to where Trump was completely justified asking for it to be dropped; and the reality is if such a reason was present there would be no reason to even ask: the investigation would simply fizzle out on its own.
President has powers you are ignoring. He can direct investigations and "hoping" something could be dropped isn't enough in any rational scenario to be obstruction of justice. I don't care who you find incompetent.Fantasy scenarios are great, huh? That didn't happen so it doesn't matter.
What part of "incompetent" are you having trouble with, anyway?
So on flat Earth, did Trump not do an interview where he stated plainly that he fired him because of the Russia investigation?President has powers you are ignoring. He can direct investigations and "hoping" something could be dropped isn't enough in any rational scenario to be obstruction of justice. I don't care who you find incompetent.
Hoping as president is an expectation of compliance.President has powers you are ignoring. He can direct investigations and "hoping" something could be dropped isn't enough in any rational scenario to be obstruction of justice. I don't care who you find incompetent.
He could have done that. And the political backlash would have been devastating to the president and the party.Again, would pardoning Flynn have been obstruction of justice? That would have ended any investigation into the Flynn matter.
There really is no upside for him to do it. If he were clean as a whistle it won't dissuade the mouth breathing tin foil hat wearing left any.
Bill Clinton is a rapist.