He didn't do anything illegal that Saturday. Stupid? Yes. Wrong? Definitely. Criminal? No I don't think so.
President is head of the executive branch, he can impede any investigation he sees fit. He's president. He could pardon anybody he wants to pardon ending and impeding all investigations. The FBI is within the executive branch.I am literally dragging back the goalposts you are trying to move. Firing the FBI director to impede an investigation is a crime. In fact, it is a felony.
Because it isn't an error.No, you said firing the FBI director is not obstruction of justice. This is an exact quote. That is a false statement because firing the FBI director can absolutely be obstruction of justice. You should be mature enough to admit your error.
You said I don't know what they uncovered, I'm giving a reason why I don't think anything damaging to Trump has been uncovered. It is a leap of logic to say the mere fact that Mueller might be looking at obstruction of justice is the same thing as him saying he has a good case for it.So you're just making things up now. Talk about a leap of logic. You have absolutely no idea what the investigation has uncovered and it is hypocritical for you to say that about other aspects of the investigation and then make this unsupported assumption.
Watch the testimony with Rubio. He did.He most certainly did not. You're trying to move the goalposts by saying only the campaign stuff is part of the 'Russia investigation' when it is clearly not.
How am I somehow morally deficient for saying something is wrong, just not illegal? Nixon committed many crimes during the Watergate scandal. It isn't only conservatives who think this.Thank you for so clearly showing how rotten conservatism has become.
To be clear, Buckshot thinks that when Nixon fired the special prosecutor for subpoenaing tapes that showed Nixon attempted to enlist the CIA to force the FBI to stop investigating felonies perpetrated on behalf of the president that wasn't illegal, that was just stupid.
do you guarantee it isn't criminal, cause your word is just rock solid, shatty.He didn't do anything illegal that Saturday. Stupid? Yes. Wrong? Definitely. Criminal? No I don't think so.
President is head of the executive branch, he can impede any investigation he sees fit. He's president. He could pardon anybody he wants to pardon ending and impeding all investigations. The FBI is within the executive branch.
Do you think pardoning people could be a crime too? Pardons by definition impede or alter investigations.
Because it isn't an error.
You said I don't know what they uncovered, I'm giving a reason why I don't think anything damaging to Trump has been uncovered. It is a leap of logic to say the mere fact that Mueller might be looking at obstruction of justice is the same thing as him saying he has a good case for it.
Watch the testimony with Rubio. He did.
How am I somehow morally deficient for saying something is wrong, just not illegal? Nixon committed many crimes during the Watergate scandal. It isn't only conservatives who think this.
President is the head of the executive branch, he can control the executive branch and anybody within it.He most certainly can not impede any investigation he sees fit.
But if impeding investigations is somehow the standard pardoning people should be obstruction of justice since they do just that.The ability to pardon people does not mean he cannot commit crimes related to investigations.
That isn't my logic. I point out further constitutional powers of the president and want to see if you think they would be crimes since they impede investigations by definition.I find this hilarious by the way as you already said witness tampering by Clinton was a crime. By your logic it couldn't be as Clinton could have just pardoned everyone. It is also terrifying because by your logic the president is entirely above the law. Let me just take a wild guess and say you didn't believe that Obama was above the law.
If Trump pardoned Flynn for any crimes related to this would the FBI keep investigating him? No.No they don't.
No it isn't. Do you want to keep volleying this back and forth?Of course it is, you're just too irrational and partisan to admit you made a mistake. Pride is one of the greatest sins, by the way.
I was answering a specific allegation that you made in that I didn't know what was uncovered. You notice Democrats don't really talk about collusion any more, right? Its all this phony obstruction nonsense.Ahhh watch the backpedaling. I'm relying on sworn testimony. You are relying on the fact that you think the president isn't a moron despite, well, all the actions he's taken so far. Lol.
President is the head of the executive branch, he can control the executive branch and anybody within it.
President is the head of the executive branch, he can control the executive branch and anybody within it.
But if impeding investigations is somehow the standard pardoning people should be obstruction of justice since they do just that.
That isn't my logic. I point out further constitutional powers of the president and want to see if you think they would be crimes since they impede investigations by definition.
If Trump pardoned Flynn for any crimes related to this would the FBI keep investigating him? No.
No it isn't. Do you want to keep volleying this back and forth?
I was answering a specific allegation that you made in that I didn't know what was uncovered. You notice Democrats don't really talk about collusion any more, right? Its all this phony obstruction nonsense.
Also most courts consider obstruction only when impeding proceedings, not investigations. So you have that going against you as well.
This theory that a POTUS can't ever obstruct justice for any actions he takes in the context of his executive power - which has been endorsed by Dershowitz and Gingrich, and now many conservatives, has staggering implications. The POTUS could order an executive branch employee to do literally anything illegal, including to destroy evidence of criminal conduct on the part of the POTUS himself. He could order any and all investigations into his own conduct be shut down. He could give literally any order in violation of any statute, so long as the order didn't directly conflict with the Constitution.
According to this theory, impeachment is literally the only check on this otherwise unlimited power to commit heinous felonies with absolute impunity. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't have the resources or knowhow to the be the sole investigatory body. They do not have the resources of the FBI. So their ability to even uncover evidence of criminality is limited. That is not even to mention the partisanship issue - if the POTUS' own party controls Congress they may well be reluctant to hold him to account for anything and impeachment is, after all, essentially a political process.
This theory is extreme and totally unhinged. I don't think it's the slightest bit exaggerated to say that the fate of the republic is in doubt if this theory is ever endorsed by the courts. It's a license to commit unlimited felonies. Is this really what the founding fathers intended when they decided it was best to move away from absolute monarchy? I'm sure conservatives will suddenly change their minds about this the next time a democrat is in the oval, but this illustrates just how far the right is willing to go to exculpate Trump from any and all wrongdoing.
Trump didn't obstruct justice.Tell me what crimes you think he committed, specifically, and why those are crimes but Trumps obstruction of justice is not.
Including, for example, ordering an executive branch employee to commit murder or molest a child. Why not? This is a logical extension of the legal position you are arguing here.
Trump didn't obstruct justice.
So if Dershowitz and others who hold this view disagree with your characterization of it will you apologizing for mischaracterizing it? Nobody but people who do not hold it would accept this ridiculous strawman version you've set up.This theory that a POTUS can't ever obstruct justice for any actions he takes in the context of his executive power - which has been endorsed by Dershowitz and Gingrich, and now many conservatives, has staggering implications. The POTUS could order an executive branch employee to do literally anything illegal, including to destroy evidence of criminal conduct on the part of the POTUS himself. He could order any and all investigations into his own conduct be shut down. He could give literally any order in violation of any statute, so long as the order didn't directly conflict with the Constitution.
That isn't my logic you moron.Yes by his logic the president could order the FBI to kill an innocent person, pardon the killer, then prohibit any investigation into the murder and all of this would be legal.
And remember, this comes from the limited government party.
Look them up your self using the search function.You didn't answer the question. You said Nixon committed many crimes. What were they? Be specific.
Nobody holds this view.Including, for example, ordering an executive branch employee to commit murder or molest a child. Why not? This is a logical extension of the legal position you are arguing here.
Yes by his logic the president could order the FBI to kill an innocent person, pardon the killer, then prohibit any investigation into the murder and all of this would be legal.
And remember, this comes from the limited government party.
That isn't my logic you moron.
Nobody holds this view.
Then explain why this is not an implication of the legal position you are arguing. You're saying the POTUS has unchecked authority over the executive branch, and is subject to no criminal sanction for the manner in which he chooses to utilize that authority, even if for an otherwise criminal purpose.
Where in the constitution does it say the president can order anybody in the executive branch to commit murder or molest a child?Yep, so far as I can tell, under this theory, the only way a POTUS could ever be guilty of any crime is if the conduct had nothing to do with exercise of his power as executive. So if Trump found out some guy was ****ing Melania and decided to put a bullet in him, then he wouldn't be immune. Then again, I think if he ordered an executive branch employee to put a bullet into the cuckolder, he'd be A-OK. That's how utterly twisted this theory is.
No it is not. You are running out of straw.Yes it is, you just weren't smart enough to realize what you were saying.
I am not saying that at all.Then explain why this is not an implication of the legal position you are arguing. You're saying the POTUS has unchecked authority over the executive branch, and is subject to no criminal sanction for the manner in which he chooses to utilize that authority, even if for an otherwise criminal purpose.