It is by definition.
This. You're either trying intentionally to obfuscate (to whom? We aren't idiots), or willfully ignorant to the facts of how law, governance, checks and balances, and frankly human nature work. I don't even know where you'd start to understand this, I guess 4th grade civics where the rest of us started.yet you don't even know what crime is. You don't know what political is. You can't distinguish simple truths from obvious lies. I question your claim that you actually know anything.
What about the Russia investigation? He fired him because he wouldn't let it be known that he wasn't under investigation.that he obstructed justice. that he fired comey because of the russia investigation. those were his own words.
on tape. You can't deny the truth, chief shatter.
Impeachment is a vote to prosecute in the senate where another vote takes place. It is 100% political to impeach anybody. If Trump murdered somebody and was impeached for it it would be political. Criminality would come later.yet you don't even know what crime is. You don't know what political is. You can't distinguish simple truths from obvious lies. I question your claim that you actually know anything.
Impeachment is a political matter, period. It can be about crimes but impeachment and conviction in the senate doesn't do anything other than remove somebody from office.This. You're either trying intentionally to obfuscate (to whom? We aren't idiots), or willfully ignorant to the facts of how law, governance, checks and balances, and frankly human nature work. I don't even know where you'd start to understand this, I guess 4th grade civics where the rest of us started.
Sure, sure, let's just all forge some nice handwavium foil hats and pretend like Trump isn't under investigation. This is just politicians doing political stuff because politics. Nothing at all to do with criminal proceedings.Impeachment is a political matter, period. It can be about crimes but impeachment and conviction in the senate doesn't do anything other than remove somebody from office.
That wasn't my point at all.Sure, sure, let's just all forge some nice handwavium foil hats and pretend like Trump isn't under investigation. This is just politicians doing political stuff because politics. Nothing at all to do with criminal proceedings.
What about the Russia investigation? He fired him because he wouldn't let it be known that he wasn't under investigation.
Pray tell, what was it then? So far in this thread you've stated:That wasn't my point at all.
No, its true.Pray tell, what was it then? So far in this thread you've stated:
That someone cannot obstruct justice for doing what they have the constitutional power to do (false)
Agreed.Can be impeached for anything (technically true, zero precedent outside criminal proceedings)
Only about what Flynn was being fired for. Not the Russian probe itself. He in fact said it would be good to know if any affiliates were involved.That Trump didn't attempt to pressure Comey (false, by Comey's own words and any rational person's interpretation)
He didn't say that.That Trump didn't fire Comey to halt an investigation (false, by Trump's own words)
That is my opinion and you definitely haven't proven it false.That Trump fired Comey because Comey wouldn't state that Trump wasn't under investigation (false, from every direction)
Just that impeachment is 100% political. They vote on articles of impeachment then they vote in the senate to convict. Nobody will go to jail if impeached/convicted. Those are separate questions.So please, explain your point, because this is painful to watch.
Impeachment is a vote to prosecute in the senate where another vote takes place. It is 100% political to impeach anybody. If Trump murdered somebody and was impeached for it it would be political. Criminality would come later.
Witness tampering is a crime. Lying under oath is a crime. Clinton did both of those things. ie. he was breaking the law.
Would you agree that the firing of Comey had zero affect on any investigation?
So my choice is to believe the Clinton News Network and a handful of liars on an internet website or a Professor of History and a former Speaker of the House. Thanks, not a very tough choice.
The point I am trying to tell you is that what makes sense to you is what conforms to your bias, and you can easily check the validity of this by noticing it would be what you think Liberals are doing as you have already said. The only thing we can say is that scientifically you are more likely to do that than I am.Based on what we know it is the most reasonable interpretation of the facts. I do not "know" why he did it, just that the version the lefties are pushing doesn't make sense of the facts.
So my choice is to believe the Clinton News Network and a handful of liars on an internet website or a Professor of History and a former Speaker of the House. Thanks, not a very tough choice.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't one of the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton obstruction of justice? Also CMIIW but wasn't Eye of Newt on board with the charges against Clinton? Now all of a sudden a President can't obstruct justice??
I have a high opinion of some.So do you customarily have a high opinion of Professors of History, or will you ditch that the second one says something you don't like about the history of this nation? I'm spoiled for choice here.
The only thing an impeachment and conviction by the senate will produce is removal of office. It is 100% purely political.The near impeachment of Nixon & the impeachment of Clinton stemmed from charges of criminal wrongdoing. You know, that "high crimes & misdemeanors" bit.
The Constitution makes a presidential exception from normal jurisprudence, putting resolution of criminal charges in the hands of Congress rather that the Judiciary.
Firing the FBI director isn't obstruction of justice. Having a Washington Post story saying Mueller is looking into obstruction isn't the same thing as saying he has a credible case of establishing a crime. That is complete nonsense. Story could also be complete nonsense too.Witness tampering is obstruction of justice, genius. That's what Newt said the president couldn't do. The special prosecutor appears to think he has a credible case of establishing this crime against Trump as well.
Comey was personally running the investigation when he was fired? How could the firing of Comey have had any effect on the investigation otherwise?No, and even if it didn't that's irrelevant to obstruction of justice as success is not an element of the crime.
Ha ha ha!Would you agree that the firing of Comey had zero affect on any investigation?
He's the head of the FBI, not an investigator. He isn't investigating squat, nor should he be.Ha ha ha!
Firing an investigator has zero effect on an investigation! Except that it led to Trump being directly investigated!
Wheeeee!
Are you suggesting your man is smart enough to think it wouldn't end the investigation? Come now... You're not that silly are you? At minimum he "hoped" it would stop it in its tracks and if the Agency took it as a threat all the better. He's a dud and a thug. Seriously,bff your guy is dumb as sh*t... what makes it dangerous is he's also a nasty, vindictive, childish, insecure really ugly person. Why is it exactly that you feel compelled to defend him?Firing the FBI director isn't obstruction of justice. Having a Washington Post story saying Mueller is looking into obstruction isn't the same thing as saying he has a credible case of establishing a crime. That is complete nonsense. Story could also be complete nonsense too.
Comey was personally running the investigation when he was fired? How could the firing of Comey have had any effect on the investigation otherwise?
Apparently he's smart enough to avoid leaving any evidence of his collusion with Russia, a grand scheme that only a mastermind could pull off.Are you suggesting your man is smart enough to think it wouldn't end the investigation? Come now... You're not that silly are you? At minimum he "hoped" it would stop it in its tracks and if the Agency took it as a threat all the better. He's a dud and a thug. Seriously,bff your guy is dumb as sh*t... what makes it dangerous is he's also a nasty, vindictive, childish, insecure really ugly person. Why is it exactly that you feel compelled to defend him?