The Definition of Obstruction of Justice--question

[candycorn]

NOPE!

But our constitution makes the attorney general both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the present on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: quot;You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the president fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump "repeatedly" told Comey to "get that fact out," and he did not.

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

You folks will never learn.

.

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

Theoretically, yes.
.

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him? Your willful ignorance and partisan hackery is starting to get old. Get back to me when you have something real.


.

This is politics. Nothing is real.

The goal here is to damage Trump so that congressional Republicans won't help him push his agenda, and to make strides in 2018 & 2020.

Fer fuck's sake, let's just be honest about this. This is the only play the Dems have, and they're doing a pretty good job. They've got an easy target.

If the GOP were in the same position, they'd be doing precisely the same thing.

Which, of course, is the problem.
.

True or false, if the GOP, at least in part, didn't want the Senate to have this hearing tomorrow, they wouldn't be having a hearing. They do, after all, control the agenda and if a full committee has hearings or not. That is why Sandra Fluke had to testify to Democrats only.

 

[Mac1958]

So Trump could dismiss everyone in the FBI from the Director down to the janitor and close the offices down from coast to coast and he would still not be violating any laws whatsoever, right?

Theoretically, yes.
.

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him? Your willful ignorance and partisan hackery is starting to get old. Get back to me when you have something real.


.

This is politics. Nothing is real.

The goal here is to damage Trump so that congressional Republicans won't help him push his agenda, and to make strides in 2018 & 2020.

Fer fuck's sake, let's just be honest about this. This is the only play the Dems have, and they're doing a pretty good job. They've got an easy target.

If the GOP were in the same position, they'd be doing precisely the same thing.

Which, of course, is the problem.
.

True or false, if the GOP, at least in part, didn't want the Senate to have this hearing tomorrow, they wouldn't be having a hearing. They do, after all, control the agenda and if a full committee has hearings or not. That is why Sandra Fluke had to testify to Democrats only.

Not sure what that has to do with my post, but sure - I have no doubt there are many Republicans who wouldn't be heartbroken if Trump were gone and Pence were in there.

They won't admit it either, but partisans are dishonest, so yeah.
.

 

[candycorn]

Theoretically, yes.
.

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him? Your willful ignorance and partisan hackery is starting to get old. Get back to me when you have something real.


.

This is politics. Nothing is real.

The goal here is to damage Trump so that congressional Republicans won't help him push his agenda, and to make strides in 2018 & 2020.

Fer fuck's sake, let's just be honest about this. This is the only play the Dems have, and they're doing a pretty good job. They've got an easy target.

If the GOP were in the same position, they'd be doing precisely the same thing.

Which, of course, is the problem.
.

True or false, if the GOP, at least in part, didn't want the Senate to have this hearing tomorrow, they wouldn't be having a hearing. They do, after all, control the agenda and if a full committee has hearings or not. That is why Sandra Fluke had to testify to Democrats only.

Not sure what that has to do with my post, but sure - I have no doubt there are many Republicans who wouldn't be heartbroken if Trump were gone and Pence were in there.

They won't admit it either, but partisans are dishonest, so yeah.
.

Well, it detracts from it being a Democrat fishing expedition for one thing.

For another thing, when you tell someone to "drop it" who is in an investigatory capacity, they don't, and they are subsequently fired; any one who is intellectually honest would admit that it looks as though they were fired for not "dropping it".

Whether you are prepared to break with your buddies and admit it...well, that is your business. Nobody is expecting intellectual honesty from you of all folks. But Senatorial Republicans seem to be willing to see where the investigation goes instead of doing the most politically expected thing and stop the thing in it's tracks.

 

[WillowTree]

So, the meeting on the tarmac in phenoix would qualify too. Yes?

Possibly.

I don't think so.

Mainly because about a week or two BEFORE Clinton met Lynch on the tarmac, it was announced that the investigation was over and leaked also, that there would be no charges against clinton.

Again, this was BEFORE Bill met Loretta....

Even if Loretta did talk to Bill Clinton about the case, which they claimed they didn't, ...the case had ALREADY been decided, and I can not see any legal reason why Lynch could not tell the suspect/suspect's husband, that there would be no charges before they told the public, a couple of days later.. even if it were a 'no name' every day person being investigated, I would expect the no namer, to be notified before the public is notified, that there would be no charges against them....

Incorrect. Comey announced that she would not be prosecuted AFTER the tarmac!

 

[2aguy]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

No.

This Harvard Law Prof Just Blew Up Claims Of Obstruction Of Justice In One Interview

Famed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz shot down claims of obstruction of justice Wednesday, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper that presidents have the right to start or stop any investigation.

Dershowitz said that, constitutionally, a president may direct an intelligence agent to stop an investigation. The “best proof” of that fact, he says, is that Trump could’ve easily pardoned former national security advisor Michael Flynn and the entire investigation would have been over anyway.

“Trump could have told Comey, ‘You are commanded, you are directed, to drop the prosecution against Flynn.’ The president has the right to do that,” he explained. “Remember also what the president could’ve done. He could’ve said to Comey, ‘Stop this investigation, I am now pardoning Flynn. That’s what President Bush did.”

Dershowitz cited the case of Caspar Weinberger, who was pardoned by George H.W. Bush before he could be tried in relation to the Iran-Contra scandal.




“You cannot have obstruction of justice when the President exercises his constitutional authority to pardon, his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI, his constitutional authority to tell the director of the FBI who to prosecute, who not to prosecute,” Dershowitz elaborated.

“You don’t believe he was trying to influence of impede any possible or further investigation into Flynn?” Cooper asked.

“What I’m telling you is that even if he did want it to impede it, and even if he did impede it, that is his constitutional power. He has the right to say, ‘You will not investigate Flynn.'”

 

[AntonToo]

So, the meeting on the tarmac in phenoix would qualify too. Yes?

? Do you know what the discussion was about on that tarmac? Do you know that Clinton asked Lynch to do something? Threaten her with something?

With trump we do know.

 

[AntonToo]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

No.

This Harvard Law Prof Just Blew Up Claims Of Obstruction Of Justice In One Interview

Famed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz shot down claims of obstruction of justice Wednesday, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper that presidents have the right to start or stop any investigation.

Dershowitz said that, constitutionally, a president may direct an intelligence agent to stop an investigation. The “best proof” of that fact, he says, is that Trump could’ve easily pardoned former national security advisor Michael Flynn and the entire investigation would have been over anyway.

“Trump could have told Comey, ‘You are commanded, you are directed, to drop the prosecution against Flynn.’ The president has the right to do that,” he explained. “Remember also what the president could’ve done. He could’ve said to Comey, ‘Stop this investigation, I am now pardoning Flynn. That’s what President Bush did.”

Dershowitz cited the case of Caspar Weinberger, who was pardoned by George H.W. Bush before he could be tried in relation to the Iran-Contra scandal.




“You cannot have obstruction of justice when the President exercises his constitutional authority to pardon, his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI, his constitutional authority to tell the director of the FBI who to prosecute, who not to prosecute,” Dershowitz elaborated.

“You don’t believe he was trying to influence of impede any possible or further investigation into Flynn?” Cooper asked.

“What I’m telling you is that even if he did want it to impede it, and even if he did impede it, that is his constitutional power. He has the right to say, ‘You will not investigate Flynn.'”

Impeachment is not exactly a legal proceeding and the only juries are congressmen.

 

[candycorn]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

No.

This Harvard Law Prof Just Blew Up Claims Of Obstruction Of Justice In One Interview

Famed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz shot down claims of obstruction of justice Wednesday, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper that presidents have the right to start or stop any investigation.

Dershowitz said that, constitutionally, a president may direct an intelligence agent to stop an investigation. The “best proof” of that fact, he says, is that Trump could’ve easily pardoned former national security advisor Michael Flynn and the entire investigation would have been over anyway.

“Trump could have told Comey, ‘You are commanded, you are directed, to drop the prosecution against Flynn.’ The president has the right to do that,” he explained. “Remember also what the president could’ve done. He could’ve said to Comey, ‘Stop this investigation, I am now pardoning Flynn. That’s what President Bush did.”

Dershowitz cited the case of Caspar Weinberger, who was pardoned by George H.W. Bush before he could be tried in relation to the Iran-Contra scandal.




“You cannot have obstruction of justice when the President exercises his constitutional authority to pardon, his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI, his constitutional authority to tell the director of the FBI who to prosecute, who not to prosecute,” Dershowitz elaborated.

“You don’t believe he was trying to influence of impede any possible or further investigation into Flynn?” Cooper asked.

“What I’m telling you is that even if he did want it to impede it, and even if he did impede it, that is his constitutional power. He has the right to say, ‘You will not investigate Flynn.'”

Yeah, do try to keep up...we've been over it.

 

[2aguy]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

No.

This Harvard Law Prof Just Blew Up Claims Of Obstruction Of Justice In One Interview

Famed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz shot down claims of obstruction of justice Wednesday, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper that presidents have the right to start or stop any investigation.

Dershowitz said that, constitutionally, a president may direct an intelligence agent to stop an investigation. The “best proof” of that fact, he says, is that Trump could’ve easily pardoned former national security advisor Michael Flynn and the entire investigation would have been over anyway.

“Trump could have told Comey, ‘You are commanded, you are directed, to drop the prosecution against Flynn.’ The president has the right to do that,” he explained. “Remember also what the president could’ve done. He could’ve said to Comey, ‘Stop this investigation, I am now pardoning Flynn. That’s what President Bush did.”

Dershowitz cited the case of Caspar Weinberger, who was pardoned by George H.W. Bush before he could be tried in relation to the Iran-Contra scandal.




“You cannot have obstruction of justice when the President exercises his constitutional authority to pardon, his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI, his constitutional authority to tell the director of the FBI who to prosecute, who not to prosecute,” Dershowitz elaborated.

“You don’t believe he was trying to influence of impede any possible or further investigation into Flynn?” Cooper asked.

“What I’m telling you is that even if he did want it to impede it, and even if he did impede it, that is his constitutional power. He has the right to say, ‘You will not investigate Flynn.'”

Impeachment is not exactly a legal proceeding and the only juries are congressmen.

The Jury is the Senate...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

You can also say that about:


"What is the meaning of "is"...is?"



.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

It is an example of being a nice guy and not wanting to see this guy's life ruined because of a mistake. He asked him if he could let it go and he did not fire him over any decision he would make on it. I don't see the obstruction of justice issue. Trump was basically asking for a pardon which is within his powers to do as president.

He should of just pardon Flynn and that would of been the end of the investigation.


.

 

[Care4all]

So, the meeting on the tarmac in phenoix would qualify too. Yes?

Possibly.

I don't think so.

Mainly because about a week or two BEFORE Clinton met Lynch on the tarmac, it was announced that the investigation was over and leaked also, that there would be no charges against clinton.

Again, this was BEFORE Bill met Loretta....

Even if Loretta did talk to Bill Clinton about the case, which they claimed they didn't, ...the case had ALREADY been decided, and I can not see any legal reason why Lynch could not tell the suspect/suspect's husband, that there would be no charges before they told the public, a couple of days later.. even if it were a 'no name' every day person being investigated, I would expect the no namer, to be notified before the public is notified, that there would be no charges against them....

Incorrect. Comey announced that she would not be prosecuted AFTER the tarmac!

Yes, he did his official announcement AFTER the tarmac....

BUT IN TH NEWS media, a week or maybe even two, BEFORE the tarmac meeting...it WAS leaked and REPORTED in the news that the FBI -Clinton investigation WAS OVER, and she was not going to be prosecuted for anything.... the article or articles of it was posted to this site, if memory serves and we all argued over it....

 

[WillowTree]

So, the meeting on the tarmac in phenoix would qualify too. Yes?

Possibly.

I don't think so.

Mainly because about a week or two BEFORE Clinton met Lynch on the tarmac, it was announced that the investigation was over and leaked also, that there would be no charges against clinton.

Again, this was BEFORE Bill met Loretta....

Even if Loretta did talk to Bill Clinton about the case, which they claimed they didn't, ...the case had ALREADY been decided, and I can not see any legal reason why Lynch could not tell the suspect/suspect's husband, that there would be no charges before they told the public, a couple of days later.. even if it were a 'no name' every day person being investigated, I would expect the no namer, to be notified before the public is notified, that there would be no charges against them....

Incorrect. Comey announced that she would not be prosecuted AFTER the tarmac!

Yes, he did his official announcement AFTER the tarmac....

BUT IN TH NEWS media, a week or maybe even two, BEFORE the tarmac meeting...it WAS leaked and REPORTED in the news that the FBI -Clinton investigation WAS OVER, and she was not going to be prosecuted for anything.... the article or articles of it was posted to this site, if memory serves and we all argued over it....

So Comey did not affect Hillary's chances as the demotards claim. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Mac1958]

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him? Your willful ignorance and partisan hackery is starting to get old. Get back to me when you have something real.


.

This is politics. Nothing is real.

The goal here is to damage Trump so that congressional Republicans won't help him push his agenda, and to make strides in 2018 & 2020.

Fer fuck's sake, let's just be honest about this. This is the only play the Dems have, and they're doing a pretty good job. They've got an easy target.

If the GOP were in the same position, they'd be doing precisely the same thing.

Which, of course, is the problem.
.

True or false, if the GOP, at least in part, didn't want the Senate to have this hearing tomorrow, they wouldn't be having a hearing. They do, after all, control the agenda and if a full committee has hearings or not. That is why Sandra Fluke had to testify to Democrats only.

Not sure what that has to do with my post, but sure - I have no doubt there are many Republicans who wouldn't be heartbroken if Trump were gone and Pence were in there.

They won't admit it either, but partisans are dishonest, so yeah.
.

Well, it detracts from it being a Democrat fishing expedition for one thing.

For another thing, when you tell someone to "drop it" who is in an investigatory capacity, they don't, and they are subsequently fired; any one who is intellectually honest would admit that it looks as though they were fired for not "dropping it".

Whether you are prepared to break with your buddies and admit it...well, that is your business. Nobody is expecting intellectual honesty from you of all folks. But Senatorial Republicans seem to be willing to see where the investigation goes instead of doing the most politically expected thing and stop the thing in it's tracks.

So now you'll pretend I'm a right winger. That's fine, I know how the game is played.

My point remains, and it remains accurate. You partisans on both ends are so damn similar.
.

 

[Crixus]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

Please show us the exact quote. 7 months and you all are holding out for this guys scribbles on a napkin to end y'all's nightmare. Yal are going to have a loooong 8 years.

 

[skews13]

Uncensored2008 pretty much defined it:

{The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”}

Trump asked Comey for his loyalty.

Wouldn't the President asking the FBI Director to "let it go" then the President dismissing the FBI Director when he didn't "let it go" be the ultimate example of obstruction of justice?

Obstruction of justice
Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that "whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense)." Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.

 

[OKTexas]

Theoretically, yes.
.

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him?
.

For firing the FBI direction when he didn't "drop" the investigation into a top Trump aide. Do try to keep up.

Really, what were they investigating, it's already been made clear there was no collusion with the Russian hacking. If Flynn fibbed to the FBI about his conversation with the Russian ambassador and they wanted to prosecute him for that, wouldn't charges already have been filed? It's been more than 5 months since he was interviewed. So what specifically are they investigating?
.

Probably why nearly everyone in the Trump campaign lied about having contact with high ranked Russian officials at some time or the other. So much so that a special prosecutor was named to get to the bottom of this scandal. The OOJ that he created by firing the FBI director is another scandal. Again, do try to keep up.

Sorry, I'm not telepathic, so I have no way of keeping up with the voices in your head.


.

 

[OKTexas]

*giggle*
Well, he should go on Television and explain to the public that he is above the law because he can fire anyone who comes to arrest him.

Only those who think Trump University was legitimate will agree with him (or you).

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him? Your willful ignorance and partisan hackery is starting to get old. Get back to me when you have something real.


.

This is politics. Nothing is real.

The goal here is to damage Trump so that congressional Republicans won't help him push his agenda, and to make strides in 2018 & 2020.

Fer fuck's sake, let's just be honest about this. This is the only play the Dems have, and they're doing a pretty good job. They've got an easy target.

If the GOP were in the same position, they'd be doing precisely the same thing.

Which, of course, is the problem.
.

True or false, if the GOP, at least in part, didn't want the Senate to have this hearing tomorrow, they wouldn't be having a hearing. They do, after all, control the agenda and if a full committee has hearings or not. That is why Sandra Fluke had to testify to Democrats only.

Not sure what that has to do with my post, but sure - I have no doubt there are many Republicans who wouldn't be heartbroken if Trump were gone and Pence were in there.

They won't admit it either, but partisans are dishonest, so yeah.
.

Well, it detracts from it being a Democrat fishing expedition for one thing.

For another thing, when you tell someone to "drop it" who is in an investigatory capacity, they don't, and they are subsequently fired; any one who is intellectually honest would admit that it looks as though they were fired for not "dropping it".

Whether you are prepared to break with your buddies and admit it...well, that is your business. Nobody is expecting intellectual honesty from you of all folks. But Senatorial Republicans seem to be willing to see where the investigation goes instead of doing the most politically expected thing and stop the thing in it's tracks.

Funny you bring up intellectual honesty when you put something in quotes that has never been said. If you're paraphrasing you don't put it in quotes, well not if you're intellectually honest.


.

 

[candycorn]

Once again, he was not a target of an investigation, so why would anyone be coming to arrest him? Your willful ignorance and partisan hackery is starting to get old. Get back to me when you have something real.


.

This is politics. Nothing is real.

The goal here is to damage Trump so that congressional Republicans won't help him push his agenda, and to make strides in 2018 & 2020.

Fer fuck's sake, let's just be honest about this. This is the only play the Dems have, and they're doing a pretty good job. They've got an easy target.

If the GOP were in the same position, they'd be doing precisely the same thing.

Which, of course, is the problem.
.

True or false, if the GOP, at least in part, didn't want the Senate to have this hearing tomorrow, they wouldn't be having a hearing. They do, after all, control the agenda and if a full committee has hearings or not. That is why Sandra Fluke had to testify to Democrats only.

Not sure what that has to do with my post, but sure - I have no doubt there are many Republicans who wouldn't be heartbroken if Trump were gone and Pence were in there.

They won't admit it either, but partisans are dishonest, so yeah.
.

Well, it detracts from it being a Democrat fishing expedition for one thing.

For another thing, when you tell someone to "drop it" who is in an investigatory capacity, they don't, and they are subsequently fired; any one who is intellectually honest would admit that it looks as though they were fired for not "dropping it".

Whether you are prepared to break with your buddies and admit it...well, that is your business. Nobody is expecting intellectual honesty from you of all folks. But Senatorial Republicans seem to be willing to see where the investigation goes instead of doing the most politically expected thing and stop the thing in it's tracks.

So now you'll pretend I'm a right winger. That's fine, I know how the game is played.

My point remains, and it remains accurate. You partisans on both ends are so damn similar.
.

No. You’re point, as always, is to shade the truth. It’s not only the Democrats who are interested in this as you indicated. The only point you have is probably under your hat.

 

[Mac1958]

This is politics. Nothing is real.

The goal here is to damage Trump so that congressional Republicans won't help him push his agenda, and to make strides in 2018 & 2020.

Fer fuck's sake, let's just be honest about this. This is the only play the Dems have, and they're doing a pretty good job. They've got an easy target.

If the GOP were in the same position, they'd be doing precisely the same thing.

Which, of course, is the problem.
.

True or false, if the GOP, at least in part, didn't want the Senate to have this hearing tomorrow, they wouldn't be having a hearing. They do, after all, control the agenda and if a full committee has hearings or not. That is why Sandra Fluke had to testify to Democrats only.

Not sure what that has to do with my post, but sure - I have no doubt there are many Republicans who wouldn't be heartbroken if Trump were gone and Pence were in there.

They won't admit it either, but partisans are dishonest, so yeah.
.

Well, it detracts from it being a Democrat fishing expedition for one thing.

For another thing, when you tell someone to "drop it" who is in an investigatory capacity, they don't, and they are subsequently fired; any one who is intellectually honest would admit that it looks as though they were fired for not "dropping it".

Whether you are prepared to break with your buddies and admit it...well, that is your business. Nobody is expecting intellectual honesty from you of all folks. But Senatorial Republicans seem to be willing to see where the investigation goes instead of doing the most politically expected thing and stop the thing in it's tracks.

So now you'll pretend I'm a right winger. That's fine, I know how the game is played.

My point remains, and it remains accurate. You partisans on both ends are so damn similar.
.

No. You’re point, as always, is to shade the truth. It’s not only the Democrats who are interested in this as you indicated. The only point you have is probably under your hat.

You're choosing to miss the point, but I do appreciate the little insult. You folks literally can't help yourselves.
.