Tell me how this is NOT an attempt to "obstruct justice"?

[nat4900]

It is a foregone conclusion that Trump DID try to obstruct justice......BUT, the sticking point is whether a sitting president can ever be indicted since resignation has always been the preferred choice by previous presidents.......

Placing aside that our current constitutional procedures have made a president somewhat above the law (except for treason and other high crimes,) Trump has obstructed the carrying out of justice based on this sequence:

1. Trump openly admitted that he fired Mike Flynn because Flynn lied to the FBI (making Flynn a confirmed felon.)

2. Prior to that open admission, Trump tried to convince Comey to let Flynn "off the hook"

3. When Comey basically refused to follow the tacit directive of Trump......Trump fired him.

The above sequence is irrefutable, and although I am no fan of Comey, this guy did the right thing by recording the exchange and publicizing it right after the occurrence.

Now, as I stated, the plain facts may NOT be enough to charge a sitting president with a crime........BUT, Trump will always be known as someone who attempted to circumvent the carrying out of an investigation toward the rendering of justice.

 

[bripat9643]

It is a foregone conclusion that Trump DID try to obstruct justice......BUT, the sticking point is whether a sitting president can ever be indicted since resignation has always been the preferred choice by previous presidents.......

Placing aside that our current constitutional procedures have made a president somewhat above the law (except for treason and other high crimes,) Trump has obstructed the carrying out of justice based on this sequence:

1. Trump openly admitted that he fired Mike Flynn because Flynn lied to the FBI (making Flynn a confirmed felon.)

2. Prior to that open admission, Trump tried to convince Comey to let Flynn "off the hook"

3. When Comey basically refused to follow the tacit directive of Trump......Trump fired him.

The above sequence is irrefutable, and although I am no fan of Comey, this guy did the right thing by recording the exchange and publicizing it right after the occurrence.

Now, as I stated, the plain facts may NOT be enough to charge a sitting president with a crime........BUT, Trump will always be known as someone who attempted to circumvent the carrying out of an investigation toward the rendering of justice.

Trump can fire Comey for any reason he likes, even to prevent him from prosecuting Comey. Firing directors of government agencies is a power granted to the president by the Constitution.

 

[JoeMoma]

It is a foregone conclusion that Trump DID try to obstruct justice......BUT, the sticking point is whether a sitting president can ever be indicted since resignation has always been the preferred choice by previous presidents.......

Placing aside that our current constitutional procedures have made a president somewhat above the law (except for treason and other high crimes,) Trump has obstructed the carrying out of justice based on this sequence:

1. Trump openly admitted that he fired Mike Flynn because Flynn lied to the FBI (making Flynn a confirmed felon.)

2. Prior to that open admission, Trump tried to convince Comey to let Flynn "off the hook"

3. When Comey basically refused to follow the tacit directive of Trump......Trump fired him.

The above sequence is irrefutable, and although I am no fan of Comey, this guy did the right thing by recording the exchange and publicizing it right after the occurrence.

Now, as I stated, the plain facts may NOT be enough to charge a sitting president with a crime........BUT, Trump will always be known as someone who attempted to circumvent the carrying out of an investigation toward the rendering of justice.

Then let the impeachment proceedings begin.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It is a foregone conclusion that Trump DID try to obstruct justice......BUT, the sticking point is whether a sitting president can ever be indicted since resignation has always been the preferred choice by previous presidents.......

Placing aside that our current constitutional procedures have made a president somewhat above the law (except for treason and other high crimes,) Trump has obstructed the carrying out of justice based on this sequence:

1. Trump openly admitted that he fired Mike Flynn because Flynn lied to the FBI (making Flynn a confirmed felon.)

2. Prior to that open admission, Trump tried to convince Comey to let Flynn "off the hook"

3. When Comey basically refused to follow the tacit directive of Trump......Trump fired him.

The above sequence is irrefutable

 

[nat4900]

Trump can fire Comey for any reason he likes, even to prevent him from prosecuting Comey. Firing directors of government agencies is a power granted to the president by the Constitution.

Nitwit, first correct your moronic post in the part I bolded.......

Second, firing Comey may be Trump's prerogative BUT the REQUEST that Trump made of Comey is at best non-ethical......Remember, that Nixon ALSO had his "constitutional right" to keep firing attorneys generals who refused to fire the special counsel Fox.....and we know how THAT ended up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is a foregone conclusion that Trump DID try to obstruct justice......BUT, the sticking point is whether a sitting president can ever be indicted since resignation has always been the preferred choice by previous presidents.......

Placing aside that our current constitutional procedures have made a president somewhat above the law (except for treason and other high crimes,) Trump has obstructed the carrying out of justice based on this sequence:

1. Trump openly admitted that he fired Mike Flynn because Flynn lied to the FBI (making Flynn a confirmed felon.)

2. Prior to that open admission, Trump tried to convince Comey to let Flynn "off the hook"

3. When Comey basically refused to follow the tacit directive of Trump......Trump fired him.

The above sequence is irrefutable, and although I am no fan of Comey, this guy did the right thing by recording the exchange and publicizing it right after the occurrence.

Now, as I stated, the plain facts may NOT be enough to charge a sitting president with a crime........BUT, Trump will always be known as someone who attempted to circumvent the carrying out of an investigation toward the rendering of justice.

Which is why the appropriate, Constitutional course of action is impeachment.

Impeachment is a political – not legal – process; a president may be in peached, convicted in the Senate, and compelled to resign from office absent alleged criminal wrongdoing, including obstruction of justice.

A president may be impeached and ultimately removed from office the consequence of his bad acts (misdemeanors), such as attacking the judiciary or violating his oath of office – both of which Trump has done.

Once removed from office a former president and private citizen would then be subject to criminal indictment if warranted.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution renders moot the question as to whether a sitting president may be indicted.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Trump can fire Comey for any reason he likes, even to prevent him from prosecuting Comey. Firing directors of government agencies is a power granted to the president by the Constitution.

Nitwit, first correct your moronic post in the part I bolded.......

Second, firing Comey may be Trump's prerogative BUT the REQUEST that Trump made of Comey is at best non-ethical......Remember, that Nixon ALSO had his "constitutional right" to keep firing attorneys generals who refused to fire the special counsel Fox.....and we know how THAT ended up.

Your conflation is showing.

 

[nat4900]

Then let the impeachment proceedings begin.

Can't do that.....YET........The republican led House does not have the balls to do that and SECOND, we would have to wait for Mueller's meticulous findings that WILL be eventually revealed to both the DOJ and congressional committees.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There has been no obstruction of justice since Trump did nothing that he was not otherwise authorized to do in the course and scope of his position as president.

Mike Flynn is not a felon. Felons become felons when there has been a judgement in court that judges him guilty of a felony.

There was never a request to Comey to do anything. "I hope that you can let this go" doesn't even rise to the level of a request.

Democrats will always be known as the party that worked towards a political coup, removing a sitting president for no other reason than they disagree with his policies.

It is a foregone conclusion that Trump DID try to obstruct justice......BUT, the sticking point is whether a sitting president can ever be indicted since resignation has always been the preferred choice by previous presidents.......

Placing aside that our current constitutional procedures have made a president somewhat above the law (except for treason and other high crimes,) Trump has obstructed the carrying out of justice based on this sequence:

1. Trump openly admitted that he fired Mike Flynn because Flynn lied to the FBI (making Flynn a confirmed felon.)

2. Prior to that open admission, Trump tried to convince Comey to let Flynn "off the hook"

3. When Comey basically refused to follow the tacit directive of Trump......Trump fired him.

The above sequence is irrefutable, and although I am no fan of Comey, this guy did the right thing by recording the exchange and publicizing it right after the occurrence.

Now, as I stated, the plain facts may NOT be enough to charge a sitting president with a crime........BUT, Trump will always be known as someone who attempted to circumvent the carrying out of an investigation toward the rendering of justice.

Then let the impeachment proceedings begin.

Democrats did that. It didn't work.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump can fire Comey for any reason he likes, even to prevent him from prosecuting Comey. Firing directors of government agencies is a power granted to the president by the Constitution.

Nitwit, first correct your moronic post in the part I bolded.......

Second, firing Comey may be Trump's prerogative BUT the REQUEST that Trump made of Comey is at best non-ethical......Remember, that Nixon ALSO had his "constitutional right" to keep firing attorneys generals who refused to fire the special counsel Fox.....and we know how THAT ended up.

Correct.

And Trump’s unethical behavior is in fact a misdemeanor pursuant to Article II, Section 4 – an impeachable offense.

 

[nat4900]

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution renders moot the question as to whether a sitting president may be indicted.

True, but my friend I do not know if Trump's actions can be classified as "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" since his "defense" will probably be ignorance of the law........An embarrassment, no doubt, but one of a somewhat lesser consequence.

 

[JoeB131]

Trump can fire Comey for any reason he likes, even to prevent him from prosecuting Comey. Firing directors of government agencies is a power granted to the president by the Constitution.

Except when you fire someone specifically to obstruct an investigation, that's where it becomes criminal.

Again, you need to ask Dick Nixon how that worked out.

 

[nat4900]

Your conflation is showing.

"Conflation" of what, exactly, Billy...What two disparate facts am I combining here?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

A president may be impeached and ultimately removed from office the consequence of his bad acts (misdemeanors), such as attacking the judiciary or violating his oath of office – both of which Trump has done.

Too funny. Being a co-equal branch of government, the Executive is free to attack an erroneous Judiciary or Legislature anytime it sees fit. That is, in fact, one of its functions.

Your definition of misdemeanor is comical at best.

Now, define using the text precisely how Trump has broken his oath of office.

 

[nat4900]

Mike Flynn is not a felon. Felons become felons when there has been a judgement in court that judges him guilty of a felony.

MORON.,,,,THAT has already happened....Flynn IS a felon.

When you opt for a plea agreement...as Flynn did.....he had to stand before a judge and ADMIT that he had lied to FBI agents....

Have another drink, Tipsy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Your conflation is showing.

"Conflation" of what, exactly, Billy...What two disparate facts am I combining here?

That the circumstances surrounding Nixon are relative to the lack of circumstances surrounding Trump.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Mike Flynn is not a felon. Felons become felons when there has been a judgement in court that judges him guilty of a felony.

MORON.,,,,THAT has already happened....Flynn IS a felon.

When you opt for a plea agreement...as Flynn did.....he had to stand before a judge and ADMIT that he had lied to FBI agents....

Have another drink, Tipsy.

He's not a felon. When was the trial? When was his allocution? Which prison is he is? Who is his probation officer?

 

[nat4900]

Your definition of misdemeanor is comical at best.

You're certainly entitled to find whatever your half brain deems "comical".....
But NEVER pretends that you know what a misdemeanor is or is not.....

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Mike Flynn is not a felon. Felons become felons when there has been a judgement in court that judges him guilty of a felony.

MORON.,,,,THAT has already happened....Flynn IS a felon

He is charged, but not convicted, ergo, he is not a felon.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Your conflation is showing.

"Conflation" of what, exactly, Billy...What two disparate facts am I combining here?

That the circumstances surrounding Nixon are relative to the lack of circumstances surrounding Trump.

No. Because Nixon was not acting in the course and scope of his position as president when he lied to cover up the break in. That's the difference.