Oh Newt you silly Newt

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No, its true.
Agreed.

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.
He didn't say that.
That is my opinion and you definitely haven't proven it false.

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.

buckshat
bək/ SHat/
Adjective
1. To meaninglessly meander verbally avoiding the point of a discussion, while attempting to steer it in a different direction.

 

[UberNeuman]

Hey, Newt. Remember that time your first wife was in the hospital recieving cancer treatments and you served her divorce papers.

THAT WAS AWESOME!

 

[xthetenth]

I have a high opinion of some.

So what criteria do you use to decide which ones you have respect for? Because if it's a matter of you respecting professors of history that you agree with, then what you're really saying is that you agree with him and therefore his opinion is right.

 

[fskimospy]

Firing the FBI director isn't obstruction of justice.

What is your basis for this?

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.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Comey was personally running the investigation when he was fired? How could the firing of Comey have had any effect on the investigation otherwise?

Did you not read what I wrote? It doesn't matter if it had an effect. If Trump intended for it to obstruct the investigation then it was a crime. The evidence strongly suggests that he did.

 

[buckshot24]

What is your basis for this?

Witness tampering is by definition, obstruction of justice. Firing an FBI director isn't.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

We don't know if that report is even true or not.

Did you not read what I wrote? It doesn't matter if it had an effect. If Trump intended for it to obstruct the investigation then it was a crime. The evidence strongly suggests that he did.

I was replying to the "no" portion of your comment.

 

[fskimospy]

Witness tampering is by definition, obstruction of justice. Firing an FBI director isn't.

What is your basis for this?

We don't know if that report is even true or not.

The Post's record on this has been good so far. It's probably true.

I was replying to the "no" portion of your comment.

So you decided to respond to the part of my reply that I specifically said was irrelevant? Hokay.

Forget if it had an effect or not. It doesn't matter. Evidence strongly suggests Trump thought it would, and if that's the case he committed a crime.

 

[Younigue]

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.

It's funny that you think your assertions about him mean anything to me.

It's so funny that you think I think you're anything but a Cult45 zealot. Of course you don't care about my assertions ---> outright statements. Does that change the fact that I am amusing myself at your expense? No Sir it does not.

 

[buckshot24]

What is your basis for this?

You can fire an FBI director without breaking the law, you cannot tamper with witnesses and not break the law. One is by definition a crime.

The Post's record on this has been good so far. It's probably true.

Looking into obstruction is none the less not an indication that Mueller thinks he has a good case of obstruction.

So you decided to respond to the part of my reply that I specifically said was irrelevant? Hokay.

You do not get to decide what is irrelevant.

Forget if it had an effect or not. It doesn't matter. Evidence strongly suggests Trump thought it would, and if that's the case he committed a crime.

There is no good evidence that Trump thought this would end the Russian investigation. Do you think Trump is stupid enough to think Comey was personally the only person running the investigation and it would go away if he just fired Comey? That isn't credible. It is insane.

 

[Younigue]

You can fire an FBI director without breaking the law, you cannot tamper with witnesses and not break the law. One is by definition a crime.
Looking into obstruction is none the less not an indication that Mueller thinks he has a good case of obstruction.
You do not get to decide what is irrelevant.
There is no good evidence that Trump thought this would end the Russian investigation. Do you think Trump is stupid enough to think Comey was personally the only person running the investigation and it would go away if he just fired Comey? That isn't credible. It is insane.

Yes, yes I do think he's that stupid. Infinitely more stupid than that even. He proves it daily, or haven't you noticed?

See, you have to spin to make that fat bastid make sense. The rest of us just witness the reality of his putrid self.

 

[Meghan54]

You can fire an FBI director without breaking the law, you cannot tamper with witnesses and not break the law. One is by definition a crime.
Looking into obstruction is none the less not an indication that Mueller thinks he has a good case of obstruction.
You do not get to decide what is irrelevant.
There is no good evidence that Trump thought this would end the Russian investigation. Do you think Trump is stupid enough to think Comey was personally the only person running the investigation and it would go away if he just fired Comey? That isn't credible. It is insane.

Care to explain just exactly what Trump meant when he said this:

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

What else is this comment supposed to mean other than Trump thinking firing Comey would quash the investigation?

The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the (May 10th) meeting (with Russian officials).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

 

[Screech]

There is no good evidence that Trump thought this would end the Russian investigation. Do you think Trump is stupid enough to think Comey was personally the only person running the investigation and it would go away if he just fired Comey? That isn't credible. It is insane.

I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it

And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.

Yeah that totally sounds like someone who isn't firing a guy in order to obstruct an investigation. Speaking of which, I hear that might be a crime....

edit: dammit, the quote by trump from the post above me is better! foiled again.

 

[buckshot24]

Care to explain just exactly what Trump meant when he said this:



What else is this comment supposed to mean other than Trump thinking firing Comey would quash the investigation?



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

That it was now out that he wasn't under investigation. Remember him asking Comey to do that?

 

[buckshot24]

Yeah that totally sounds like someone who isn't firing a guy in order to obstruct an investigation. Speaking of which, I hear that might be a crime....

edit: dammit, the quote by trump from the post above me is better! foiled again.

He doesn't say he fired him to end any investigation.

But think about what you're saying. In your scenario Trump is so stupid that he actually thought Comey was the only person running any and all investigations into Russia and that he literally thought he could end it by firing Comey.

OR, it was now out that Trump wasn't under investigation.

One is asinine and the other aligns with Comey's testimony as to what Trump asked Comey to do about the Russian investigation.

 

[Younigue]

That it was now out that he wasn't under investigation. Remember him asking Comey to do that?

Coo-coo, whackadoo, loon! <---- Don't mind me, those are just lyrics to a song I'm writing about Cult45's.

Now wipe that chin, close your mouth, breath through your nose, stop getting your meals from the bottom, enroll in a facility for deprogramming, take a shower (you've got a certain pong about'cha, don'tcha know), self-reflect (when you feel good, it's likely bad. When you think you're thinking smart things, you're most definitely way off base. Honestly, if you don't want to be a completely absurd person it's within your reach. Try, won'tchu?)

 

[Younigue]

He doesn't say he fired him to end any investigation.

But think about what you're saying. In your scenario Trump is so stupid that he actually thought Comey was the only person running any and all investigations into Russia and that he literally thought he could end it by firing Comey.

OR, it was now out that Trump wasn't under investigation.

One is asinine and the other aligns with Comey's testimony as to what Trump asked Comey to do about the Russian investigation.

Yes, Trump is that stupid. He is a complete and utter moron. There is a distinct possibility that Trump believed Comey was the Be-All to End-All given that he was the Head of the Agency. The man does think power is more powerful than it really is. You get that, yes? This is why he whines with a consistency more consistent than his daily bowel movement tweets. Speaking of that, do you ever wish he'd man-up?

To be clear, I'm not calling you dumb. I'm calling you awe-stuck. They can often look similar but they're different.

 

[Screech]

He doesn't say he fired him to end any investigation.

But think about what you're saying. In your scenario Trump is so stupid that he actually thought Comey was the only person running any and all investigations into Russia and that he literally thought he could end it by firing Comey.

OR, it was now out that Trump wasn't under investigation.

One is asinine and the other aligns with Comey's testimony as to what Trump asked Comey to do about the Russian investigation.

A reasonable person would read Trump's statement to indicate that Trump was saying he fired comey because he didn't like the investigation that was occurring under Comey, and that therefore, he fired him in order to slow or stop that investigation. The other statements he made support that conclusion. One likely reason is that he appears to think he could/can fill every position with a sycophant who would do his bidding; making the investigation go away or at least lose focus could perhaps be possible by getting rid of one person. For example, imagine if you were the one in charge of investigating Trump. Do you think any investigating would get done? Obviously the Republicans in congress will do his bidding and try not to investigate him -- Rand Paul in fact stated that explicitly.

edit: so to be clear, I regard "I fired him because I didn't like him carrying out investigations" to be pretty similar and in some cases identical to "I fired him to slow down or stop that investigation which I am now going to define explicitly"

 

[fskimospy]

You can fire an FBI director without breaking the law, you cannot tamper with witnesses and not break the law. One is by definition a crime.

I can't believe this has to be explained. You are assuming the crime in one case and not the other.

What is witness tampering in the case of Clinton? It's advising people about what to say under oath. You can absolutely tell people what to say under oath and not break the law, for example if you tell them to tell the truth. If you tell them to say something OTHER than the truth in order to impede an investigation you have obstructed justice. Similarly you can fire the FBI director and not break the law, but if you fire him to impede an investigation you have obstructed justice.

You previously and falsely claimed firing the FBI director can't be obstruction of justice. Do you admit this is wrong now?

Looking into obstruction is none the less not an indication that Mueller thinks he has a good case of obstruction.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

You do not get to decide what is irrelevant.

The law gets to decide what is irrelevant, and the statutes for obstruction of justice are very clear that the attempt is what matters, not if it succeeds. The law and I are both in agreement, it is irrelevant.

There is no good evidence that Trump thought this would end the Russian investigation. Do you think Trump is stupid enough to think Comey was personally the only person running the investigation and it would go away if he just fired Comey? That isn't credible. It is insane.

Of course there is good evidence that Trump thought it would influence the Russia investigation. According to reports that the White House does not even dispute as of last time I checked, he told the Russians that firing Comey would relieve pressure on him related to the Russia investigation.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Regardless of whether or not you think he is stupid and/or insane (I agree he appears to be both), from this document he clearly thought it would influence the investigation.

Glad we cleared this all up. Lol. I'm kind of amazed you didn't know this basic stuff.

 

[fskimospy]

A reasonable person would read Trump's statement to indicate that Trump was saying he fired comey because he didn't like the investigation that was occurring under Comey, and that therefore, he fired him in order to slow or stop that investigation. The other statements he made support that conclusion. One likely reason is that he appears to think he could/can fill every position with a sycophant who would do his bidding; making the investigation go away or at least lose focus could perhaps be possible by getting rid of one person. For example, imagine if you were the one in charge of investigating Trump. Do you think any investigating would get done? Obviously the Republicans in congress will do his bidding and try not to investigate him -- Rand Paul in fact stated that explicitly.

edit: so to be clear, I regard "I fired him because I didn't like him carrying out investigations" to be pretty similar and in some cases identical to "I fired him to slow down or stop that investigation which I am now going to define explicitly"

He seems to be trying to move the goalposts from Trump influencing the investigation in a favorable way by firing Comey he's trying to move it to firing him ending the investigation entirely, which is something no one has ever said. It becomes a lot easier to argue against that straw man, hence you get the 'was he so stupid as to think Comey was the ONLY one investigating?'

You have to be careful with Buckshot as he's a terribly dishonest person.

 

[jackstar7]

He's the head of the FBI, not an investigator. He isn't investigating squat, nor should he be.

What's the "I" stand for?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

What's the "I" stand for?

in shatty's case? Imbecile, Ignoramus, Idiot, Incompetent....

 

[buckshot24]

A reasonable person would read Trump's statement to indicate that Trump was saying he fired comey because he didn't like the investigation that was occurring under Comey, and that therefore, he fired him in order to slow or stop that investigation. The other statements he made support that conclusion. One likely reason is that he appears to think he could/can fill every position with a sycophant who would do his bidding; making the investigation go away or at least lose focus could perhaps be possible by getting rid of one person. For example, imagine if you were the one in charge of investigating Trump. Do you think any investigating would get done? Obviously the Republicans in congress will do his bidding and try not to investigate him -- Rand Paul in fact stated that explicitly.

edit: so to be clear, I regard "I fired him because I didn't like him carrying out investigations" to be pretty similar and in some cases identical to "I fired him to slow down or stop that investigation which I am now going to define explicitly"

The only testimony we have of Comey with regards to the Russian investigation is that Trump wanted to get it out that he wasn't under investigation.

Comey wasn't the one in charge of investigating Trump anyway, up until he was fired Comey said he wasn't under investigation.

 

[buckshot24]

I can't believe this has to be explained. You are assuming the crime in one case and not the other.

What is witness tampering in the case of Clinton? It's advising people about what to say under oath. You can absolutely tell people what to say under oath and not break the law, for example if you tell them to tell the truth. If you tell them to say something OTHER than the truth in order to impede an investigation you have obstructed justice. Similarly you can fire the FBI director and not break the law, but if you fire him to impede an investigation you have obstructed justice.

Telling people what to say under oath isn't witness tampering.

You previously and falsely claimed firing the FBI director can't be obstruction of justice. Do you admit this is wrong now?

Absolutely not.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Translation, you know I'm right and this is all you can say about it.

The law gets to decide what is irrelevant, and the statutes for obstruction of justice are very clear that the attempt is what matters, not if it succeeds. The law and I are both in agreement, it is irrelevant.

Setting the legal question aside for a moment, my point is that nothing happened to the Russian investigation. Only a complete moron would think it would by firing the head of the FBI, Trump isn't a complete moron.

Of course there is good evidence that Trump thought it would influence the Russia investigation. According to reports that the White House does not even dispute as of last time I checked, he told the Russians that firing Comey would relieve pressure on him related to the Russia investigation.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

Comey said the only thing Trump asked him to do with the Russian investigation is to let it be known that he wasn't under investigation. That statement lines up exactly with sworn testimony from the former director.

Regardless of whether or not you think he is stupid and/or insane (I agree he appears to be both), from this document he clearly thought it would influence the investigation.

Glad we cleared this all up. Lol. I'm kind of amazed you didn't know this basic stuff.

That isn't clear at all.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

in shatty's case? Imbecile, Ignoramus, Idiot, Incompetent....

Irrelevant, Inept...

 

[SMOGZINN]

The only testimony we have of Comey with regards to the Russian investigation is that Trump wanted to get it out that he wasn't under investigation.

Which Comey wouldn't say because Trump probably was (and is) a party of interest in the investigation. Firing Comey for not saying something that could harm the investigation is obstruction of justice.

Comey wasn't the one in charge of investigating Trump anyway, up until he was fired Comey said he wasn't under investigation.

No, Comey was the boss of the people investigating Trump and company. The person that could definitely order the people doing the investigation to keep Trump out of it. Since Comey would not do that Trump fired him, and is hoping to replace him with someone that will do that.

 

[buckshot24]

He seems to be trying to move the goalposts from Trump influencing the investigation in a favorable way by firing Comey he's trying to move it to firing him ending the investigation entirely, which is something no one has ever said. It becomes a lot easier to argue against that straw man, hence you get the 'was he so stupid as to think Comey was the ONLY one investigating?'

You have to be careful with Buckshot as he's a terribly dishonest person.

Didn't you quote an unconfirmed statement from Trump where he said

“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Apparently Trump thought the pressure was "taken off". Not alleviated.