Obstruction of justice is a crime though, and firing the FBI director can easily be that.
I like how when cornered in your own bad logic you just ignore it and start over. It's incredibly juvenile.
Witness tampering, bribes, suborning perjury are crimes. Firing an FBI director isn't a crime.
I ignored nothing. You think you've proven your point and I don't. A president doing a perfectly legal and constitutional thing cannot be obstruction of justice.Obstruction of justice is a crime though, and firing the FBI director can easily be that.
I like how when cornered in your own bad logic you just ignore it and start over. It's incredibly juvenile.
It can become a crime depending on the reason, which you are conveniently ignoring or claiming it doesn't matter.I ignored nothing. You think you've proven your point and I don't. A president doing a perfectly legal and constitutional thing cannot be obstruction of justice.
Sorry, no it can't.It can become a crime depending on the reason, which you are conveniently ignoring or claiming it doesn't matter.
I ignored nothing. You think you've proven your point and I don't. A president doing a perfectly legal and constitutional thing cannot be obstruction of justice.
Destroying evidence is a crime in itself. Firing an FBI director is just a constitutionally provided power of the executive. He's the boss of the entire executive where the FBI resides.Of course it can be. Are you arguing that Richard Nixon did nothing wrong?
As I told you before and you conveniently ignored, company officials shredding documents is totally legal. If they are doing that to obstruct an investigation that legal action becomes a crime.
What part of this don't you understand?
It's not evidence until it is, is his point. Prior to an investigation, they are just documents. When a subpoena calls for them, then we have ourselves a potential crime.Destroying evidence is a crime in itself. Firing an FBI director is just a constitutionally provided power of the executive. He's the boss of the entire executive where the FBI resides.
Ok, that's why I said destroying evidence is a crime, not documents.It's not evidence until it is, is his point. Prior to an investigation, they are just documents. When a subpoena calls for them, then we have ourselves a potential crime.
Not confused at all, this poisoning the well with lies is simply another example of your dishonesty.Are you as confused by time as you are by the shape of the planet?
You're the one who stupidly suggests that taking something out of context is the same thing as not providing the context.EDIT: This is unfair. I just realized that this hinges on an understanding of context -- something you've repeatedly shown an inability to grasp.
Destroying evidence is a crime in itself. Firing an FBI director is just a constitutionally provided power of the executive. He's the boss of the entire executive where the FBI resides.
Right, but you get how the analogy to Comey works, right? Like maybe Trump didn't know it was a crime, but it still was? You're already doing a hefty amount of suppositions based on your feelings, (he's surrounded by people who wouldn't let him do X.) so I don't want to drag this down any further.Ok, that's why I said destroying evidence is a crime, not documents.
Not confused at all, this poisoning the well with lies is simply another example of your dishonesty.
You're the one who stupidly suggests that taking something out of context is the same thing as not providing the context.
I totally understand your point. It's crap.No, shredding documents is totally legal unless it obstructs an investigation. Similarly firing the FBI director is totally legal unless it obstructs an investigation. Whether he is the boss is irrelevant, only the obstruction matters.
Do you understand better now?
Destroying evidence is a crime in itself. Firing an FBI director is just a constitutionally provided power of the executive. He's the boss of the entire executive where the FBI resides.
Your posting? Indeed it is.It's crap.
You have become a complete moron and a complete waste of time.Your posting? Indeed it is.
Bonus! I left out context and did not provide the context... almost like those were linked somehow.
Can you pinpoint when that happened?You have become a complete moron and a complete waste of time.
I said Nixon did things wrong on that Saturday night. He just didn't do anything illegal.Also can you confirm you think Nixon did nothing wrong? If you think he did, can you explain the difference?
I said Nixon did things wrong on that Saturday night. He just didn't do anything illegal.
He paid hush money, he suborned perjury, destroyed subpoenaed evidence which are all illegal.
I totally understand your point. It's crap.
But he will let you know he didn't call you a name, he just insulted your point rather than answer it.It's very telling that you can't offer a counterpoint other than name calling.
Witness tampering, bribes, suborning perjury are crimes. Firing an FBI director isn't a crime.
I already told you that it wasn't illegal.The Saturday Night Massacre was about him firing people investigating him. Can I confirm you think he did nothing illegal there?
Just trying to nail you down on an endorsement of almost unlimited criminal activity.