CDZ Is the president the chief executive of the federal gov or not?

[JoeMoma]

So, was ford guilty of obstruction of justice when he pardoned Nixon?

 

[Syriusly]

Didn´t Trump say "I hope the investigation can be ended". That and nothing more? No order, no pressure, just a personal opinion. I don´t think that the President can stop investigations. Aren´t investigations required by the law and not by persons in the end? However, just an opinion. What´s going on in America? Has the state of law turned upside down? Not that Trump shouldn´t fuck off with his missiles, but this is really disturbing.

If the president of the United States says "I can hope you let this go" it is very hard to not be influenced. Especially considering he is the one that can fire you. If my boss says, " I hope you can stay late " I would seriously consider staying late. And believe me ,he isn't the boss of a country.

The president had the constitutional authority to "influence" the head of the FBI. If not, what's the point in being president?

The point of being President is to lead our nation- not to try to protect your personal pals from criminal prosecution.

I don't know whether Trump tried to obstruct justice or not- but I do look forward to hearing Comey's testimony, and seeing Comey's notes- and if Trump has recordings of their conversations- lets hear them too.

The constitution gives the president pardon power. As previous presidents have proven, the president can use that power as he wishes to protect his pals. However, presidents usually wait til their final days in office to protect their pals for political reasons.

Ford protected Nixon from prosecution with his pardon. Since the president can use his pardon pen to protect his pals, what difference does it make if he stalls an investigation instead. In fact, stalling an investigation is a lesser way of protecting a pal than a pardon. The next administration can't overturn a pardon, but it can restart an investigation.

What difference does it matter?

I think I see what you are saying- but legally there are huge differences.

A President seeking to prevent a criminal investigation is committing a crime- he is obstructing justice.
A President pardoning a person- convicted or not- is using his legal Constitutional powers.

If Trump wants to pardon Flynn right now for any crimes he might have committed in connection with Russia- Trump can legally do so- and the public- and Congress would decide whether or not that was an appropriate use of Presidential power- or an abuse of Presidential power.

But if Trump tried to stop an investigation from happening- then he moves into Nixon type behavior. And we know how that turned out.

 

[Syriusly]

So, was ford guilty of obstruction of justice when he pardoned Nixon?

Nope- Ford was using his legal authority to pardon someone.

IF Ford had instead told the FBI and the Justice Department not to investigate or charge Nixon- then he would have been guilty of obstruction of Justice.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't know. Run a country maybe? Preserve the constitution? A big part of that document is about not putting to much power in the hands of a single power.You seem to be asking for dictatorial powers for the president. After all if he can just order any legal issues to go away as long as he has the majority in both houses there's no limits on what he can do.

Clinton was impeached but not convicted because the senate did not have the will to convict him even though it was proved that he lied under oath. .

The Senate didn't have the will to convict Clinton for what was clearly a partisan political impeachment.

Yes- he did lie under oath. And yes- the Senate did not find that was an convictable offence.

Tell Marth Stewart that it was a political impeachment. .

I have no clue what the hell you are saying- Martha Stewart?

Last I checked- she wasn't impeached.

No she was not impeached. she spent 5 months in jail and 2 years on probation for lying to federal law enforcement.

And again- I have no clue why you want to talk about Martha Stewart.....a fan of her cooking?

 

[Syriusly]

Even Comey agrees that Trump had the authority to fire him. The president is the chief executive of the federal government. The attorney general reports to the president and is the head of the justice department. The head of the FBI reports to the deputy attorney general who reports to the attorney general.

In other words, the president is the boss. He has the authority to fire the head of the FBI. He also has the authority to give the head of the FBI orders.

So what is all this fuss about "obstruction of justice". Does the president not have the authority to order the head of the FBI to use prosecutory discretion, to lay off of one investigation and focus on others. The president obviously has the authority to tell ICE to lay off the dreamers when it comes to deportations. Doesn't the constitution give the president authority over the FBI. Is the president the boss or not?

Also, the president has the power to pardon. Trump could have simply pardoned Flynn and made the investigation a moot point.

The constitution gives congress the power to "check" the power of the president. If congress has the votes, the house can vote to impeach, and the senate can vote to convict based on any reasoning they choose. But until this is done, the president is the boss of the executive branch. The FBI seems to have decided on its own not to investigate the leaks that are known to be crimes. Instead, they are investigating Flynn before knowing even if there is a crime on his part. Is the president the boss of the executive branch or not. If he is, even if Trump ordered Comey to lay off the Flynn investigation, it's not criminal obstruction of justice, it's simply prosecutory discretion.

-Obstruction of justice is defined quite broadly: it involves any conduct in which a person willfully interferes with the administration of justice.
That means influencing, obstructing, or impeding any kind of proceeding before a federal agency, department, court, or Congress
-It doesn't put in an exclusion based on the person's position.
- As to your claim it could simply be considered prosecutory discretion. Since Trump is both involved in the investigation as at the very least a person of interest and not directly involved as a representative of the justice department it seems a highly dubious claim.
- Even if all the legal hairsplitting is done and no criminal wrongdoing established, it would still be highly unethical.

Unethical, perhaps......but the boss is the boss. Some may say it would be unethical for trump to pardon Flynn, yet no one questions that authority (that I know of).

Do you think that the President can just do whatever he wants? That anything he says goes? Like if he ordered the DOJ to arrest Nancy Pelosi tomorrow- because she was impeding his tax bill- could he do that legally?

No, not anything he wants, but anything he wants under the authority of the constitution. Just as Comey had the athority to tell the investigators under his athority to stop working on case A and move on to case B. Trump being by chain of command above Comey should be able to direct Comey to tell his investigators to stop working on case A and move to case B. There is nothing in the constitution to prevent the president from micro-managing those under his chain of authority.

Sure there is- every person there is sworn to uphold the Constitution- and if the President by passes the Department of Justice to issue an illegal order- an order to obstruct justice- then they have no obligation to follow that order.

 

[JoeMoma]

Clinton was impeached but not convicted because the senate did not have the will to convict him even though it was proved that he lied under oath. .

The Senate didn't have the will to convict Clinton for what was clearly a partisan political impeachment.

Yes- he did lie under oath. And yes- the Senate did not find that was an convictable offence.

Tell Marth Stewart that it was a political impeachment. .

I have no clue what the hell you are saying- Martha Stewart?

Last I checked- she wasn't impeached.

No she was not impeached. she spent 5 months in jail and 2 years on probation for lying to federal law enforcement.

And again- I have no clue why you want to talk about Martha Stewart.....a fan of her cooking?

You are too smart to not have a clue why I bring up Martha Stewart. It is to point out the seriousness of Clinton's offense. A common citizen served jail time. The president remained president. He did however have his law license revoked by the bar association, but he didn't need it anymore.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Didn´t Trump say "I hope the investigation can be ended". That and nothing more? No order, no pressure, just a personal opinion. I don´t think that the President can stop investigations. Aren´t investigations required by the law and not by persons in the end? However, just an opinion. What´s going on in America? Has the state of law turned upside down? Not that Trump shouldn´t fuck off with his missiles, but this is really disturbing.

If the president of the United States says "I can hope you let this go" it is very hard to not be influenced. Especially considering he is the one that can fire you. If my boss says, " I hope you can stay late " I would seriously consider staying late. And believe me ,he isn't the boss of a country.

The president had the constitutional authority to "influence" the head of the FBI. If not, what's the point in being president?

I don't know. Run a country maybe? Preserve the constitution? A big part of that document is about not putting to much power in the hands of a single power.You seem to be asking for dictatorial powers for the president. After all if he can just order any legal issues to go away as long as he has the majority in both houses there's no limits on what he can do.

Clinton was impeached but not convicted because the senate did not have the will to convict him even though it was proved that he lied under oath. .

The Senate didn't have the will to convict Clinton for what was clearly a partisan political impeachment.

Yes- he did lie under oath. And yes- the Senate did not find that was an convictable offence.

The perjury charge was a 55 to 45 vote

The obstruction of Justice was a 50 to 50 vote..


What does that tell you?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Clinton was impeached but not convicted because the senate did not have the will to convict him even though it was proved that he lied under oath. .

The Senate didn't have the will to convict Clinton for what was clearly a partisan political impeachment.

Yes- he did lie under oath. And yes- the Senate did not find that was an convictable offence.

Tell Marth Stewart that it was a political impeachment. .

I have no clue what the hell you are saying- Martha Stewart?

Last I checked- she wasn't impeached.

No she was not impeached. she spent 5 months in jail and 2 years on probation for lying to federal law enforcement.

And again- I have no clue why you want to talk about Martha Stewart.....a fan of her cooking?

This is the CDZ not the flame zone

 

[airplanemechanic]

The Senate didn't have the will to convict Clinton for what was clearly a partisan political impeachment.

Yes- he did lie under oath. And yes- the Senate did not find that was an convictable offence.

Tell Marth Stewart that it was a political impeachment. .

I have no clue what the hell you are saying- Martha Stewart?

Last I checked- she wasn't impeached.

No she was not impeached. she spent 5 months in jail and 2 years on probation for lying to federal law enforcement.

And again- I have no clue why you want to talk about Martha Stewart.....a fan of her cooking?

This is the CDZ not the flame zone

Are you a moderator?

 

[Syriusly]

The Senate didn't have the will to convict Clinton for what was clearly a partisan political impeachment.

Yes- he did lie under oath. And yes- the Senate did not find that was an convictable offence.

Tell Marth Stewart that it was a political impeachment. .

I have no clue what the hell you are saying- Martha Stewart?

Last I checked- she wasn't impeached.

No she was not impeached. she spent 5 months in jail and 2 years on probation for lying to federal law enforcement.

And again- I have no clue why you want to talk about Martha Stewart.....a fan of her cooking?

You are too smart to not have a clue why I bring up Martha Stewart. It is to point out the seriousness of Clinton's offense. A common citizen served jail time. The president remained president. He did however have his law license revoked by the bar association, but he didn't need it anymore.

And indeed the President did indeed remain President- and no one attempted to prosecute him for his lie.

Impeachment ultimately is a political process- the House can impeach- and the Senate can convict a President on anything that they want to. Or not.

The decision to impeach President Clinton was partisan and political. And was not supported by the public. The Senate proved to be wiser than the House.

Clinton to this day remains one of the most popular Presidents in America- while Trump- well Trump has lower approval ratings than any President at this point in his presidency.

 

[Syriusly]

The Senate didn't have the will to convict Clinton for what was clearly a partisan political impeachment.

Yes- he did lie under oath. And yes- the Senate did not find that was an convictable offence.

Tell Marth Stewart that it was a political impeachment. .

I have no clue what the hell you are saying- Martha Stewart?

Last I checked- she wasn't impeached.

No she was not impeached. she spent 5 months in jail and 2 years on probation for lying to federal law enforcement.

And again- I have no clue why you want to talk about Martha Stewart.....a fan of her cooking?

This is the CDZ not the flame zone

You don't like my post- report me. I didn't attack the poster- he was derailing his own thread and I frankly still don't know why.

 

[Syriusly]

If the president of the United States says "I can hope you let this go" it is very hard to not be influenced. Especially considering he is the one that can fire you. If my boss says, " I hope you can stay late " I would seriously consider staying late. And believe me ,he isn't the boss of a country.

The president had the constitutional authority to "influence" the head of the FBI. If not, what's the point in being president?

I don't know. Run a country maybe? Preserve the constitution? A big part of that document is about not putting to much power in the hands of a single power.You seem to be asking for dictatorial powers for the president. After all if he can just order any legal issues to go away as long as he has the majority in both houses there's no limits on what he can do.

Clinton was impeached but not convicted because the senate did not have the will to convict him even though it was proved that he lied under oath. .

The Senate didn't have the will to convict Clinton for what was clearly a partisan political impeachment.

Yes- he did lie under oath. And yes- the Senate did not find that was an convictable offence.

The perjury charge was a 55 to 45 vote

The obstruction of Justice was a 50 to 50 vote..


What does that tell you?


.

That the Senate did not convict.

Maybe the Senate will if Trump can be shown trying to obstruct justice.

 

[yiostheoy]

Even Comey agrees that Trump had the authority to fire him. The president is the chief executive of the federal government. The attorney general reports to the president and is the head of the justice department. The head of the FBI reports to the deputy attorney general who reports to the attorney general.

In other words, the president is the boss. He has the authority to fire the head of the FBI. He also has the authority to give the head of the FBI orders.

So what is all this fuss about "obstruction of justice". Does the president not have the authority to order the head of the FBI to use prosecutory discretion, to lay off of one investigation and focus on others. The president obviously has the authority to tell ICE to lay off the dreamers when it comes to deportations. Doesn't the constitution give the president authority over the FBI. Is the president the boss or not?

Also, the president has the power to pardon. Trump could have simply pardoned Flynn and made the investigation a moot point.

The constitution gives congress the power to "check" the power of the president. If congress has the votes, the house can vote to impeach, and the senate can vote to convict based on any reasoning they choose. But until this is done, the president is the boss of the executive branch. The FBI seems to have decided on its own not to investigate the leaks that are known to be crimes. Instead, they are investigating Flynn before knowing even if there is a crime on his part. Is the president the boss of the executive branch or not? If he is, even if Trump ordered Comey to lay off the Flynn investigation, it's not criminal obstruction of justice, it's simply prosecutory discretion.

Do bears sh!t in the woods?

Same as DJ Trump is sh!tting himself now over the charges of obstruction of justice from all sides both GOP and DEM.

Is a duck's azz watertight?

Same as the case against Trump is starting to look watertight for obstruction of justice.

Do chickens have lips?

Same as the lying lips on Trumps mouth that lie anytime his lips are moving. Same as LBJ used to.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Fokker D.J. Trump is a blithering nabob -- just like Spiro T. Agnew used to say.

 

[yiostheoy]

Even Comey agrees that Trump had the authority to fire him. The president is the chief executive of the federal government. The attorney general reports to the president and is the head of the justice department. The head of the FBI reports to the deputy attorney general who reports to the attorney general.

In other words, the president is the boss. He has the authority to fire the head of the FBI. He also has the authority to give the head of the FBI orders.

So what is all this fuss about "obstruction of justice". Does the president not have the authority to order the head of the FBI to use prosecutory discretion, to lay off of one investigation and focus on others. The president obviously has the authority to tell ICE to lay off the dreamers when it comes to deportations. Doesn't the constitution give the president authority over the FBI. Is the president the boss or not?

Also, the president has the power to pardon. Trump could have simply pardoned Flynn and made the investigation a moot point.

The constitution gives congress the power to "check" the power of the president. If congress has the votes, the house can vote to impeach, and the senate can vote to convict based on any reasoning they choose. But until this is done, the president is the boss of the executive branch. The FBI seems to have decided on its own not to investigate the leaks that are known to be crimes. Instead, they are investigating Flynn before knowing even if there is a crime on his part. Is the president the boss of the executive branch or not. If he is, even if Trump ordered Comey to lay off the Flynn investigation, it's not criminal obstruction of justice, it's simply prosecutory discretion.

-Obstruction of justice is defined quite broadly: it involves any conduct in which a person willfully interferes with the administration of justice.
That means influencing, obstructing, or impeding any kind of proceeding before a federal agency, department, court, or Congress
-It doesn't put in an exclusion based on the person's position.
- As to your claim it could simply be considered prosecutory discretion. Since Trump is both involved in the investigation as at the very least a person of interest and not directly involved as a representative of the justice department it seems a highly dubious claim.
- Even if all the legal hairsplitting is done and no criminal wrongdoing established, it would still be highly unethical.

Obstruction of justice, to wit:

1 - DJ Trump asks Comey for "his personal loyalty".

2 - DJ Trump asks Comey to let the investigation into Flynn go.

3 - Comey asks for more funding for the Flynn investigation.

4 - Trump fires Comey and gives half a dozen conflicting excuses for it until he finally confesses it was because of the Russian investigation.

Case study in obstruction of justice.

Shades of Nixon and Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre.

 

[Faun]

Is the president the chief executive of the federal gov or not?

He is not. He's the head of the Executive branch. While the Executive branch is part of the federal government, it's not the federal government. There are other branches of the federal government which the president has no authority over.

 

[Faun]

Even Comey agrees that Trump had the authority to fire him. The president is the chief executive of the federal government. The attorney general reports to the president and is the head of the justice department. The head of the FBI reports to the deputy attorney general who reports to the attorney general.

In other words, the president is the boss. He has the authority to fire the head of the FBI. He also has the authority to give the head of the FBI orders.

So what is all this fuss about "obstruction of justice". Does the president not have the authority to order the head of the FBI to use prosecutory discretion, to lay off of one investigation and focus on others. The president obviously has the authority to tell ICE to lay off the dreamers when it comes to deportations. Doesn't the constitution give the president authority over the FBI. Is the president the boss or not?

Also, the president has the power to pardon. Trump could have simply pardoned Flynn and made the investigation a moot point.

The constitution gives congress the power to "check" the power of the president. If congress has the votes, the house can vote to impeach, and the senate can vote to convict based on any reasoning they choose. But until this is done, the president is the boss of the executive branch. The FBI seems to have decided on its own not to investigate the leaks that are known to be crimes. Instead, they are investigating Flynn before knowing even if there is a crime on his part. Is the president the boss of the executive branch or not. If he is, even if Trump ordered Comey to lay off the Flynn investigation, it's not criminal obstruction of justice, it's simply prosecutory discretion.

-Obstruction of justice is defined quite broadly: it involves any conduct in which a person willfully interferes with the administration of justice.
That means influencing, obstructing, or impeding any kind of proceeding before a federal agency, department, court, or Congress
-It doesn't put in an exclusion based on the person's position.
- As to your claim it could simply be considered prosecutory discretion. Since Trump is both involved in the investigation as at the very least a person of interest and not directly involved as a representative of the justice department it seems a highly dubious claim.
- Even if all the legal hairsplitting is done and no criminal wrongdoing established, it would still be highly unethical.

Obstruction of justice, to wit:

1 - DJ Trump asks Comey for "his personal loyalty".

2 - DJ Trump asks Comey to let the investigation into Flynn go.

3 - Comey asks for more funding for the Flynn investigation.

4 - Trump fires Comey and gives half a dozen conflicting excuses for it until he finally confesses it was because of the Russian investigation.

Case study in obstruction of justice.

Shades of Nixon and Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre.

 

[yiostheoy]

DJ Trump has now committed at least 2 impeachable offenses.

To wit:

1 - he has slandered BH Obama about bugging Trump Towers, a misdemeanor.

2 - he has obstructed justice, a high crime, by trying to persuade Comey to stop the investigation into Flynn and then fired Comey when he would not stop but instead asked for more funding to continue.

Those two articles of impeachment should appear on the charge sheet.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Even Comey agrees that Trump had the authority to fire him. The president is the chief executive of the federal government. The attorney general reports to the president and is the head of the justice department. The head of the FBI reports to the deputy attorney general who reports to the attorney general.

In other words, the president is the boss. He has the authority to fire the head of the FBI. He also has the authority to give the head of the FBI orders.

So what is all this fuss about "obstruction of justice". Does the president not have the authority to order the head of the FBI to use prosecutory discretion, to lay off of one investigation and focus on others. The president obviously has the authority to tell ICE to lay off the dreamers when it comes to deportations. Doesn't the constitution give the president authority over the FBI. Is the president the boss or not?

Also, the president has the power to pardon. Trump could have simply pardoned Flynn and made the investigation a moot point.

The constitution gives congress the power to "check" the power of the president. If congress has the votes, the house can vote to impeach, and the senate can vote to convict based on any reasoning they choose. But until this is done, the president is the boss of the executive branch. The FBI seems to have decided on its own not to investigate the leaks that are known to be crimes. Instead, they are investigating Flynn before knowing even if there is a crime on his part. Is the president the boss of the executive branch or not? If he is, even if Trump ordered Comey to lay off the Flynn investigation, it's not criminal obstruction of justice, it's simply prosecutory discretion.

Didn't Obamma do the same in office?
Was not Hillys crimes get white washed by the FBI? Did not Obamma lie in office?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Does the president not have the authority to order the head of the FBI to use prosecutory discretion, to lay off of one investigation and focus on others.

For the most part, no, because it's the executive branch's job to, given the context (where it exists) provided by the judicial branch, enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch. There are certain laws that a POTUS can, at his discretion, opt to enforce less forcefully than others, however, the laws that pertain to matters involving treason, sedition, espionage and other means by which the nation's democratic foundations are, by a concordance of domestic and foreign actors, denuded, confounded, compromised and/or corrupted are not among the laws whereof prudence grants such discretion.