Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

[jillian]

So when Richard Nixon resigned for obstruction, all of his lawyers were wrong?

Damn you're stupid

he was not charged with obstruction for firing any one, and you claim to be a lawyer?

he wasn't charged with ANYTHING, idiota, he RESIGNED before he was charged with obstruction.

Read a history book.

the obstruction he was accused of was NOT because he fired anyone retard.

so now, it's a different *type* of obstruction, eh? you know, given that you made yourself sound like an imbecile.

actually, you psychotic nutcase, the Saturday night massacre was part of the obstruction.

anything else the voices in your head are telling you?

Be specific Counselor and link and quote to us any claim that Nixon was charged with obstruction for firing anyone.

come on, dingbat, where's a link to where I said he was "charged".

still wating, freak-o

 

[RetiredGySgt]

he was not charged with obstruction for firing any one, and you claim to be a lawyer?

AGAIN, HE WASN'T CHARGED WITH ANYTHING. HE RESIGNED BEFORE THEY CHARGED HIM WITH OBSTRUCTION.

Moron.

Then how can you claim he was charged with obstruction like you keep claiming? which is it counselor?

show me where I said "charged".

i'll wait, loon.

you keep claiming Nixon was charged with obstruction ok lets go with accuses shall we counselor, be specific and link and quote for us where he was accused of obstruction for firing anyone.

go show me where I said, "charged", you freak of nature.

fine retard we shall go with accused shall we? now provide proof of your claim.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

he was not charged with obstruction for firing any one, and you claim to be a lawyer?

he wasn't charged with ANYTHING, idiota, he RESIGNED before he was charged with obstruction.

Read a history book.

the obstruction he was accused of was NOT because he fired anyone retard.

so now, it's a different *type* of obstruction, eh? you know, given that you made yourself sound like an imbecile.

actually, you psychotic nutcase, the Saturday night massacre was part of the obstruction.

anything else the voices in your head are telling you?

Be specific Counselor and link and quote to us any claim that Nixon was charged with obstruction for firing anyone.

come on, dingbat, where's a link to where I said he was "charged".

still wating, freak-o

so you admit nothing to do with Nixon has anything to do with Trump thanks for admitting you were wrong.

 

[jillian]

he wasn't charged with ANYTHING, idiota, he RESIGNED before he was charged with obstruction.

Read a history book.

the obstruction he was accused of was NOT because he fired anyone retard.

so now, it's a different *type* of obstruction, eh? you know, given that you made yourself sound like an imbecile.

actually, you psychotic nutcase, the Saturday night massacre was part of the obstruction.

anything else the voices in your head are telling you?

Be specific Counselor and link and quote to us any claim that Nixon was charged with obstruction for firing anyone.

come on, dingbat, where's a link to where I said he was "charged".

still wating, freak-o

so you admit nothing to do with Nixon has anything to do with Trump thanks for admitting you were wrong.

where is the link, loony toon?

I never said "charged". I don't have to deny it scum puppy. you need to prove it.

any normal human being, who isn't a lying loon, knows Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were brought and that any articles of impeachment would have included obstruction of justice.

you might want to look at article one of the draft articles of impeachment for Nixon, dum dum

"On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities"

*more at link*

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

I hope that helps you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the obstruction he was accused of was NOT because he fired anyone retard.

so now, it's a different *type* of obstruction, eh? you know, given that you made yourself sound like an imbecile.

actually, you psychotic nutcase, the Saturday night massacre was part of the obstruction.

anything else the voices in your head are telling you?

Be specific Counselor and link and quote to us any claim that Nixon was charged with obstruction for firing anyone.

come on, dingbat, where's a link to where I said he was "charged".

still wating, freak-o

so you admit nothing to do with Nixon has anything to do with Trump thanks for admitting you were wrong.

where is the link, loony toon?

I never said "charged". I don't have to deny it scum puppy. you need to prove it.

any normal human being, who isn't a lying loon, knows Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were brought and that any articles of impeachment would have included obstruction of justice.

I hope that helps you.

so you lied thanks for admitting it.

 

[Reasonable]

You can't charge a President with Obstruction of Justice or Obstruction of an Official Investigation while the President is seated.....

BUT YOU CAN charge them with Obstruction of Justice or Abuse of Power in an Impeachment and impeachment trial..... that's a FACT, JACK!

I'm charging Trump with "STUPID" in his decision in Israel that the world condemns AND ot how stupid was he in not listening to Obama about not taking Flynn on?

Other countries are now following Trump's lead in Israel, try to keep up.

Yes Blues I must bow to your expertise....
Speaking in Algiers, French President Emmanuel Macron called Trump's decision "regrettable" and said the new American policy "contravenes international law."
In addition, the German government said it doesn't doesn't support Trump's decision, Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesperson, Steffen Seibert, said on Twitter.
Seibert wrote: "#Merkel on the decision by @POTUS Trump regarding Jerusalem: 'The Federal Government does not support this decision, because the status of Jerusalem is to be negotiated within the framework of a 2-state solution.'"
Middle East leaders oppose
Leaders across the Middle East came out against the Trump administration's announcement and urged the US to reconsider.
Jordan called the US decision "a violation of international legitimacy." State Minister for Media Affairs and Government's Spokesperson, Mohammad al-Momani, said in a statement that Jordan rejects the decision, which he said fuels tension.
Egypt rejects the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and any impact that may result from it, President el-Sisi said in a statement released by his office. "This decision overlooks the special position of Jerusalem for Arabs and Muslims"
Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, the governing authority in Gaza, decried the move, tweeting, "Trump's decision will not succeed in changing the reality of Jerusalem being Islamic Arab land. This decision is foolish and time will tell that the biggest losers are Trump and Netanyahu."

Did England our old friend that he turned into an enemy agree with this moronic decision?

England is no longer our friend. The Dump took care of that.

 

[Reasonable]

the obstruction he was accused of was NOT because he fired anyone retard.

so now, it's a different *type* of obstruction, eh? you know, given that you made yourself sound like an imbecile.

actually, you psychotic nutcase, the Saturday night massacre was part of the obstruction.

anything else the voices in your head are telling you?

Be specific Counselor and link and quote to us any claim that Nixon was charged with obstruction for firing anyone.

come on, dingbat, where's a link to where I said he was "charged".

still wating, freak-o

so you admit nothing to do with Nixon has anything to do with Trump thanks for admitting you were wrong.

where is the link, loony toon?

I never said "charged". I don't have to deny it scum puppy. you need to prove it.

any normal human being, who isn't a lying loon, knows Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were brought and that any articles of impeachment would have included obstruction of justice.

you might want to look at article one of the draft articles of impeachment for Nixon, dum dum

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

I hope that helps you.

Bob Woodward: This Russian scandal is far worse than Watergate.

 

[jillian]

so now, it's a different *type* of obstruction, eh? you know, given that you made yourself sound like an imbecile.

actually, you psychotic nutcase, the Saturday night massacre was part of the obstruction.

anything else the voices in your head are telling you?

Be specific Counselor and link and quote to us any claim that Nixon was charged with obstruction for firing anyone.

come on, dingbat, where's a link to where I said he was "charged".

still wating, freak-o

so you admit nothing to do with Nixon has anything to do with Trump thanks for admitting you were wrong.

where is the link, loony toon?

I never said "charged". I don't have to deny it scum puppy. you need to prove it.

any normal human being, who isn't a lying loon, knows Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were brought and that any articles of impeachment would have included obstruction of justice.

I hope that helps you.

so you lied thanks for admitting it.

no one lied except you.

now go take your meds

and then re-read my post, psycho boy Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Be specific Counselor and link and quote to us any claim that Nixon was charged with obstruction for firing anyone.

come on, dingbat, where's a link to where I said he was "charged".

still wating, freak-o

so you admit nothing to do with Nixon has anything to do with Trump thanks for admitting you were wrong.

where is the link, loony toon?

I never said "charged". I don't have to deny it scum puppy. you need to prove it.

any normal human being, who isn't a lying loon, knows Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were brought and that any articles of impeachment would have included obstruction of justice.

I hope that helps you.

so you lied thanks for admitting it.

no one lied except you.

now go take your meds

and then re-read my post, psycho boy Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

you claimed that there was precedent to charge a president with obstruction for firing an appointee and said Nixon was the precedent you lied.

 

[jillian]

come on, dingbat, where's a link to where I said he was "charged".

still wating, freak-o

so you admit nothing to do with Nixon has anything to do with Trump thanks for admitting you were wrong.

where is the link, loony toon?

I never said "charged". I don't have to deny it scum puppy. you need to prove it.

any normal human being, who isn't a lying loon, knows Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were brought and that any articles of impeachment would have included obstruction of justice.

I hope that helps you.

so you lied thanks for admitting it.

no one lied except you.

now go take your meds

and then re-read my post, psycho boy Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

you claimed that there was precedent to charge a president with obstruction for firing an appointee and said Nixon was the precedent you lied.

poor insane lying twit

where did I ever say he was charged, you lying loon?. and this is precedent:

again.... this time with feeling....

"On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities"

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

 

[eddiew37]

You can't charge a President with Obstruction of Justice or Obstruction of an Official Investigation while the President is seated.....

BUT YOU CAN charge them with Obstruction of Justice or Abuse of Power in an Impeachment and impeachment trial..... that's a FACT, JACK!

I'm charging Trump with "STUPID" in his decision in Israel that the world condemns AND ot how stupid was he in not listening to Obama about not taking Flynn on?

Other countries are now following Trump's lead in Israel, try to keep up.

Yes Blues I must bow to your expertise....
Speaking in Algiers, French President Emmanuel Macron called Trump's decision "regrettable" and said the new American policy "contravenes international law."
In addition, the German government said it doesn't doesn't support Trump's decision, Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesperson, Steffen Seibert, said on Twitter.
Seibert wrote: "#Merkel on the decision by @POTUS Trump regarding Jerusalem: 'The Federal Government does not support this decision, because the status of Jerusalem is to be negotiated within the framework of a 2-state solution.'"
Middle East leaders oppose
Leaders across the Middle East came out against the Trump administration's announcement and urged the US to reconsider.
Jordan called the US decision "a violation of international legitimacy." State Minister for Media Affairs and Government's Spokesperson, Mohammad al-Momani, said in a statement that Jordan rejects the decision, which he said fuels tension.
Egypt rejects the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and any impact that may result from it, President el-Sisi said in a statement released by his office. "This decision overlooks the special position of Jerusalem for Arabs and Muslims"
Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, the governing authority in Gaza, decried the move, tweeting, "Trump's decision will not succeed in changing the reality of Jerusalem being Islamic Arab land. This decision is foolish and time will tell that the biggest losers are Trump and Netanyahu."

Did England our old friend that he turned into an enemy agree with this moronic decision?

England is no longer our friend. The Dump took care of that.

They can't wait like most here for the garbage to be cleaned out of our WH

 

[g5000]

This is for all the forum idiots who think Mueller can charge Trump with obstruction of justice:

Dershowitz: 'You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction of Justice for Exercising His Constitutional Power' - Breitbart​

Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz batted down the merit of obstruction of justice charges aimed at President Donald Trump for what he said was exercising his constitutional power and authority regarding the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey and instructing the Department of Justice what to and not to investigate.

“If Congress were to ever charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2, we’d have a constitutional crisis,” he explained. “You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate. That’s what Thomas Jefferson did. That’s what Lincoln did. That’s what Roosevelt did. We have precedents that clearly establish that.”

​

Dershowitz has already backpedaled, doofus.

Here's why even the Republicans decided to impeach Nixon.

Haldeman: Now, on the investigation, you know, the Democratic break-in thing, we’re back to the-in the, the problem area because the FBI is not under control, because Gray doesn’t exactly know how to control them, and they have, their investigation is now leading into some productive areas, because they’ve been able to trace the money, not through the money itself, but through the bank, you know, sources – the banker himself. And, and it goes in some directions we don’t want it to go. Ah, also there have been some things, like an informant came in off the street to the FBI in Miami, who was a photographer or has a friend who is a photographer who developed some films through this guy, Barker, and the films had pictures of Democratic National Committee letter head documents and things. So I guess, so it’s things like that that are gonna, that are filtering in. Mitchell came up with yesterday, and John Dean analyzed very carefully last night and concludes, concurs now with Mitchell’s recommendation that the only way to solve this, and we’re set up beautifully to do it, ah, in that and that…the only network that paid any attention to it last night was NBC…they did a massive story on the Cuban…

Nixon: That’s right.

Haldeman: thing.

Nixon: Right.

Haldeman: That the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters call Pat Gray and just say, “Stay the hell out of this …this this ah, business here we don’t want you to go any further on it.” That’s not an unusual development,…

Nixon: Um huh.

Haldeman: …and, uh, that would take care of it.

Nixon: What about Pat Gray, ah, you mean he doesn’t want to?

Haldeman: Pat does want to. He doesn’t know how to, and he doesn’t have, he doesn’t have any basis for doing it. Given this, he will then have the basis. He’ll call Mark Felt in, and the two of them …and Mark Felt wants to cooperate because…

Nixon: Yeah.

Haldeman: he’s ambitious…

Nixon: Yeah.

Haldeman: Ah, he’ll call him in and say, “We’ve got the signal from across the river to, to put the hold on this.” And that will fit rather well because the FBI agents who are working the case, at this point, feel that’s what it is. This is CIA.

Nixon: But they’ve traced the money to ‘em.

Haldeman: Well they have, they’ve traced to a name, but they haven’t gotten to the guy yet.

Nixon: Would it be somebody here?

Haldeman: Ken Dahlberg.

Nixon: Who the hell is Ken Dahlberg?

Haldeman: He’s ah, he gave $25,000 in Minnesota and ah, the check went directly in to this, to this guy Barker.

Nixon: Maybe he’s a …bum.

Nixon: He didn’t get this from the committee though, from Stans.

Haldeman: Yeah. It is. It is. It’s directly traceable and there’s some more through some Texas people in–that went to the Mexican bank which they can also trace to the Mexican bank…they’ll get their names today. And (pause)

Nixon: Well, I mean, ah, there’s no way… I’m just thinking if they don’t cooperate, what do they say? They they, they were approached by the Cubans. That’s what Dahlberg has to say, the Texans too. Is that the idea?

Haldeman: Well, if they will. But then we’re relying on more and more people all the time. That’s the problem. And ah, they’ll stop if we could, if we take this other step.

Nixon: All right. Fine.

Haldeman: And, and they seem to feel the thing to do is get them to stop?

Nixon: Right, fine.

Haldeman: They say the only way to do that is from White House instructions. And it’s got to be to Helms and, ah, what’s his name…? Walters.

Nixon: Walters.

Haldeman: And the proposal would be that Ehrlichman (coughs) and I call them in

Nixon: All right, fine.

Haldeman: and say, ah…

Nixon: How do you call him in, I mean you just, well, we protected Helms from one hell of a lot of things.

Haldeman: That’s what Ehrlichman says.

Nixon: Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you will-that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there’s a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further.This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves. Well what the hell, did Mitchell know about this thing to any much of a degree.

Haldeman: I think so. I don ‘t think he knew the details, but I think he knew.

Nixon: He didn’t know how it was going to be handled though, with Dahlberg and the Texans and so forth? Well who was the asshole that did? (Unintelligible) Is it Liddy? Is that the fellow? He must be a little nuts.

Haldeman: He is.

Nixon: I mean he just isn’t well screwed on is he? Isn’t that the problem?

Haldeman: No, but he was under pressure, apparently, to get more information, and as he got more pressure, he pushed the people harder to move harder on…

Nixon: Pressure from Mitchell?

Haldeman: Apparently.

Nixon: Oh, Mitchell, Mitchell was at the point that you made on this, that exactly what I need from you is on the–

Haldeman: Gemstone, yeah.

Nixon: All right, fine, I understand it all. We won’t second-guess Mitchell and the rest. Thank God it wasn’t Colson.

Haldeman: The FBI interviewed Colson yesterday. They determined that would be a good thing to do.

Nixon: Um hum.

Haldeman: Ah, to have him take a…

Nixon: Um hum.

Haldeman: An interrogation, which he did, and that, the FBI guys working the case had concluded that there were one or two possibilities, one, that this was a White House, they don’t think that there is anything at the Election Committee, they think it was either a White House operation and they had some obscure reasons for it, non political,…

Nixon: Uh huh.

Haldeman: or it was a…

Nixon: Cuban thing-

Haldeman: Cubans and the CIA. And after their interrogation of, of…

Nixon: Colson.

Haldeman: Colson, yesterday, they concluded it was not the White House, but are now convinced it is a CIA thing, so the CIA turn off would…

Nixon: Well, not sure of their analysis, I’m not going to get that involved. I’m (unintelligible).

Haldeman: No, sir. We don’t want you to.

Nixon: You call them in.

Nixon: Good. Good deal! Play it tough. That’s the way they play it and that’s the way we are going to play it.

Haldeman: O.K. We’ll do it.

Nixon: Yeah, when I saw that news summary item, I of course knew it was a bunch of crap, but I thought ah, well it’s good to have them off on this wild hair thing because when they start bugging us, which they have, we’ll know our little boys will not know how to handle it. I hope they will though. You never know. Maybe, you think about it. Good!

 

[Flopper]

Again for the TRULY SLOW AND STUPID, a President has sole and absolute power to fire ANY appointee for ANY reason and there is not a single instance of that not being true Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anybody.

He does not, as he can be punished for doing it as part of a crime. That's a fact.

And Dershowitz wasn't referring to firing Comey, but rather to Trump giving his opinion of the investigation to Comey and exerting influence upon it.

from the article

Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz batted down the merit of obstruction of justice charges aimed at President Donald Trump for what he said was exercising his constitutional power and authority regarding the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey and instructing the Department of Justice what to and not to investigate.

Having the power to act does not mean the president can not be held accountable for his actions. If Trump fired Comey because of his poor job performance that is certainly proper but if the reason he fired Comey was to protect himself from criminal charges, that's something quite different.

Actually, not. It's legal in both cases.

What you're saying is the president can stop any federal investigation that targets him; that is, he is beyond the reaches of the law. However, he will not be beyond the reach of congress, even a republican controlled congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so you admit nothing to do with Nixon has anything to do with Trump thanks for admitting you were wrong.

where is the link, loony toon?

I never said "charged". I don't have to deny it scum puppy. you need to prove it.

any normal human being, who isn't a lying loon, knows Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were brought and that any articles of impeachment would have included obstruction of justice.

I hope that helps you.

so you lied thanks for admitting it.

no one lied except you.

now go take your meds

and then re-read my post, psycho boy Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

you claimed that there was precedent to charge a president with obstruction for firing an appointee and said Nixon was the precedent you lied.

poor insane lying twit

where did I ever say he was charged, you lying loon?. and this is precedent:

again.... this time with feeling....

"On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities"

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

Be specific and shown in the article where ANY of that has to do with firing ANYONE dumb ass. And again you can not have it both ways either Nixon was accused or he wasn't which is it?

 

[Care4all]

You can't charge a President with Obstruction of Justice or Obstruction of an Official Investigation while the President is seated.....

BUT YOU CAN charge them with Obstruction of Justice or Abuse of Power in an Impeachment and impeachment trial..... that's a FACT, JACK!

If congress has the votes, they can charge the president with abuse of power for getting to eat two scoops of ice cream when everyone else only got one scoop in an impeachment trial. That is a fact Jacklyn!

no denying that here! in fact, our founders purposely set up impeachment as a political process of removal and not a criminal justice process...

 

[g5000]

where is the link, loony toon?

I never said "charged". I don't have to deny it scum puppy. you need to prove it.

any normal human being, who isn't a lying loon, knows Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were brought and that any articles of impeachment would have included obstruction of justice.

I hope that helps you.

so you lied thanks for admitting it.

no one lied except you.

now go take your meds

and then re-read my post, psycho boy Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

you claimed that there was precedent to charge a president with obstruction for firing an appointee and said Nixon was the precedent you lied.

poor insane lying twit

where did I ever say he was charged, you lying loon?. and this is precedent:

again.... this time with feeling....

"On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities"

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

Be specific and shown in the article where ANY of that has to do with firing ANYONE dumb ass. And again you can not have it both ways either Nixon was accused or he wasn't which is it?

Nixon was going to be impeached for obstructing justice. I provided the relevant conversation above. It has remarkable similarities to the Trump-Comey fiasco.

Comey was fired because he would not stop the investigation after being asked to stop by Trump.

As for firings, I take it you have never heard of the Saturday Night Massacre?

 

[JoeMoma]

so you lied thanks for admitting it.

no one lied except you.

now go take your meds

and then re-read my post, psycho boy Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

you claimed that there was precedent to charge a president with obstruction for firing an appointee and said Nixon was the precedent you lied.

poor insane lying twit

where did I ever say he was charged, you lying loon?. and this is precedent:

again.... this time with feeling....

"On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities"

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

Be specific and shown in the article where ANY of that has to do with firing ANYONE dumb ass. And again you can not have it both ways either Nixon was accused or he wasn't which is it?

Nixon was going to be impeached for obstructing justice. I provided the relevant conversation above. It has remarkable similarities to the Trump-Comey fiasco.

Comey was fired because he would not stop the investigation after being asked to stop by Trump.

As for firings, I take it you have never heard of the Saturday Night Massacre?

Let's see... We already know that Trump fired Comey. Why hasn't Trump been impeached yet?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so you lied thanks for admitting it.

no one lied except you.

now go take your meds

and then re-read my post, psycho boy Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

you claimed that there was precedent to charge a president with obstruction for firing an appointee and said Nixon was the precedent you lied.

poor insane lying twit

where did I ever say he was charged, you lying loon?. and this is precedent:

again.... this time with feeling....

"On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities"

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

Be specific and shown in the article where ANY of that has to do with firing ANYONE dumb ass. And again you can not have it both ways either Nixon was accused or he wasn't which is it?

Nixon was going to be impeached for obstructing justice. I provided the relevant conversation above. It has remarkable similarities to the Trump-Comey fiasco.

Comey was fired because he would not stop the investigation after being asked to stop by Trump.

As for firings, I take it you have never heard of the Saturday Night Massacre?

And yet you can not provide a single statement made by congress threatening to impeach Nixon for firing anyone, go figure.

 

[Flopper]

Trump fired Comey because Comey would not slack off his investigation. That's obstruction of justice.

No it isn't Trump can fire an appointee for ANY reason. ANY reason means just that and no Nixon was not charged with obstruction for firing anyone so don't try that lie.

But Nixon was. And Trump cannot impede an investigation.

Look fool, you can do all the bellowing you want, but this investigation s is continuing and apparently Mueller has evidence that shows him he can continue. You don't have that information therefore you really have nothing to say.

Actiually, he can impede an investigation conducted by his own justice department. That's one of his functions as the country's chief law enforcement officer

Remember the last president who tried to impeded an investigation of his administration and it cost him his presidency. The president certainly has the power to shutdown any investigation but he will have to deal with the political fallout.

The LIBs have been frantically trying to get rid of Trump before Ruth crooks and or Kennedy retires.
That's the 100% number one reason the LIBs MUST impeach Trump.
CNN BREAKING NEWS! The 'investigations haven't turned up a SINGLE bit of evidence that Trump 'colluded' with russia.
What has been exposed is the extent of Hillary's corrupt dealings with the russians.

Correction, they haven't release any, big difference. Members of Mueller's team as well as the grand jury are sworn to secrecy. Most of what we accept as information is leaks, half truths, and speculation. When the investigation is complete, and all indictments have been made, we may see a statement from Mueller that details the investigation, with recommendations and conclusions. Then again, we may not. My guess is we will, particular if there are charges directed against the president. The prosecution of such charges would be left to congress, not the courts.

 

[g5000]

no one lied except you.

now go take your meds

and then re-read my post, psycho boy Dershowitz: ‘You Cannot Charge a President With Obstruction for Exercising His Constitutional Power’

you claimed that there was precedent to charge a president with obstruction for firing an appointee and said Nixon was the precedent you lied.

poor insane lying twit

where did I ever say he was charged, you lying loon?. and this is precedent:

again.... this time with feeling....

"On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities"

Watergate Articles Of Impeachment

Be specific and shown in the article where ANY of that has to do with firing ANYONE dumb ass. And again you can not have it both ways either Nixon was accused or he wasn't which is it?

Nixon was going to be impeached for obstructing justice. I provided the relevant conversation above. It has remarkable similarities to the Trump-Comey fiasco.

Comey was fired because he would not stop the investigation after being asked to stop by Trump.

As for firings, I take it you have never heard of the Saturday Night Massacre?

And yet you can not provide a single statement made by congress threatening to impeach Nixon for firing anyone, go figure.

Dude, I gave you a giant clue.

The Saturday Night Massacre is what turned popular opinion and Congress against Nixon. For the first time, a majority of Americans supported Nixon's impeachment as a direct result of the Massacre.

The Saturday Night Massacre was the basis for Article I of the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon.

You should not dive into matters of which you know nothing.