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.
Dream on. You people are nuts. Everything is obstruction of justice with you.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 testified that it would be good if some of his affiliates did something wrong that it would be known. Hardly sounds like somebody trying to impede an investigation.No, Comey was the boss of the people investigating Trump and company. The person that could definitely the people doing the investigation to stop 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.
Its funny that his tweets get parsed as if they are inspired scripture but when I do it then there's a problem.That is splitting hairs pretty fine. Trump is not well known as a precise orator, he has about a 4th grade vocabulary and is often having to re-explain what he means because of his poor grammar and small vocabulary. I'm pretty sure he meant alleviated when he said that.
When you have even a small degree of influence over an investigation that you could even possibly involved in you have to be extremely carful because obstruction of justice has a very broad definition. It is intentionally that way. It covers nearly anything that could hamper the investigation, with only the courts (or in this case Congress) to decide what is and is not obstruction. The final question you have to ask is 'Was this action intended to keep an investigation from finding the truth?' Forcing someone over the investigation to announce publicly that a specific person is not a part of the investigation, before the investigators have had a chance to determine that could very easily be seen as an attempt to put political pressure on them to keep that person from being investigated.Dream on. You people are nuts. Everything is obstruction of justice with you.
Even if he did mean 'lowered' and not removed, it would still be obstruction of justice to intentionally do something to lower the chances that you would be investigated.Its funny that his tweets get parsed as if they are inspired scripture but when I do it then there's a problem.
You don't agree with unitary executive theory?When you have even a small degree of influence over an investigation that you could even possibly involved in you have to be extremely carful because obstruction of justice has a very broad definition. It is intentionally that way. It covers nearly anything that could hamper the investigation, with only the courts (or in this case Congress) to decide what is and is not obstruction. The final question you have to ask is 'Was this action intended to keep an investigation from finding the truth?' Forcing someone over the investigation to announce publicly that a specific person is not a part of the investigation, before the investigators have had a chance to determine that could very easily be seen as an attempt to put political pressure on them to keep that person from being investigated.
He doesn't say investigation either though, does he?Even if he did mean 'lowered' and not removed, it would still be obstruction of justice to intentionally do something to lower the chances that you would be investigated.
You don't agree with unitary executive theory?
He doesn't say investigation either though, does he?
Telling people what to say under oath isn't witness tampering.
Absolutely not.
Translation, you know I'm right and this is all you can say about it.
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.
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.
That isn't clear at all.
You don't agree with unitary executive theory?
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.
Not in that context, assuming that leak is true. It is just as reasonable to say he's talking about it being known publicly that he wasn't under investigation.The investigation is what is being talked about, it is the understood subject.
Yes I do and no he couldn't have.You do not understand what unitary executive theory is, as repeatedly demonstrated here. Trump can have every right to fire Comey and still have committed a felony in doing so.
Yes I do and no he couldn't have.
Don't move the goal posts.Yes it is. Witness tampering is any attempt to alter the testimony of a witness. Duh. Regardless, firing the FBI director to impede an investigation is a crime.
You telling me they are false is you telling me they are false, nothing more.Color me completely unsurprised that you are unwilling to rescind false statements once someone tells you better.
You made a complete leap of logic.Whatever you need to tell yourself.
President isn't working in a vacuum either, he has advisers who are not imbeciles who would have told him this wouldn't have stopped or impeded a Russian investigation that Comey testified that Trump said it would be good to know if his affiliates did something wrong.You of course have no way of knowing what the Russian investigation has uncovered, and Trump has certainly acted like a complete moron repeatedly in only a few months.
That wasn't a part of the "Russian investigation", Comey made that distinction when questioned by Rubio at the hearing.False. The idea that the investigation of Flynn's contacts with the Russians that he lied about are separate from the overall investigation is a lie. Comey testified that Trump attempted to influence him to drop the investigation into Flynn, which is likely a crime. (A felony to be exact.)
What a rebuttal from the man who idiotically quadrupled down on what impeachment was.Holy shit you are historically dumb.
What a rebuttal from the man who idiotically quadrupled down on what impeachment was.
Are you saying tripled down on stupid is better?lol, you don't even do math well.
Don't move the goal posts.
You telling me they are false is you telling me they are false, nothing more.
You made a complete leap of logic.
President isn't working in a vacuum either, he has advisers who are not imbeciles who would have told him this wouldn't have stopped or impeded a Russian investigation that Comey testified that Trump said it would be good to know if his affiliates did something wrong.
What we do know is that there has been leak after leak damaging to the president. To suggest that there has been something uncovered and not leaked is not credible.
That wasn't a part of the "Russian investigation", Comey made that distinction when questioned by Rubio at the hearing.
Yes I do and no he couldn't have.
He didn't do anything illegal that Saturday. Stupid? Yes. Wrong? Definitely. Criminal? No I don't think so.Thank you for proving my point. By your logic Nixon should have stuck it out because he did nothing wrong as the Saturday night massacre was just an HR issue.
This is how corrupted modern American conservatism has become. The mental and moral rot is near total.