Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A former counsel to the Watergate investigation says there is enough there to warrant a obstruction of justice charge against Trump if Mueller wanted one. There are different opinions.
In this 4 minute video.
Constitution professor Alan Dershowitz explains how Trump is within his presidential rights, and not obstruction of justice, when it comes to Comey. ......
I've been asking all along... If the investigations continue, how were they obstructed? Nothing Trump has done had any effect on the investigations. He may have asked Comey to ease off Flynn or make it clear he wasn't personally under investigation, but that's not obstruction. Asking for Comey's loyalty is also, prima facie, not obstruction!
I've been asking all along... If the investigations continue, how were they obstructed? Nothing Trump has done had any effect on the investigations. He may have asked Comey to ease off Flynn or make it clear he wasn't personally under investigation, but that's not obstruction. Asking for Comey's loyalty is also, prima facie, not obstruction!
All true, and I agree, but the timing of firing Comey does make you go hmmm.
LOL Really frosts your agates to realize that the fat senile old orange clown cannot get away with obstruction of justice, doesn't it. You long for a person like Putin or Pol Pot.The answer to the first question is: Criminal obstruction of justice is broadly defined, and according to 18 U.S. Code § 1503, includes “any threatening letter or communication [which] influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”
Hey pencil-dick. The President said to James "Bitch" Comey, I hope you can let this go. Flynn is a good man who has been treated unjustly.
And that was it by Comey's own snippy testimony.
If you think that was obstruction of justice, you belong in a gulag. Idiot.
Comey testimony: Trump has constitutional authority to stop investigation of any person, Dershowitz says
Alan M. Dershowitz, a law professor at Harvard, wrote on FoxNews.com Wednesday that President Trump has the constitutional right to direct his FBI director to stop an investigation of anyone “by simply pardoning that person.”
“Throughout American history-- from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama-- presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals,” Dershowitz wrote. “It is only recently that the tradition of an independent Justice Department and FBI has emerged. But traditions, even salutary ones, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge.”
Comey testimony: Trump has constitutional authority to stop investigation of any person, Dershowitz says
Then why was Nixon impeached?
A former counsel to the Watergate investigation says there is enough there to warrant a obstruction of justice charge against Trump if Mueller wanted one. There are different opinions.
Opinion | I helped prosecute Watergate. Comey’s statement is sufficient evidence for an obstruction of justice case.
I've been asking all along... If the investigations continue, how were they obstructed? Nothing Trump has done had any effect on the investigations. He may have asked Comey to ease off Flynn or make it clear he wasn't personally under investigation, but that's not obstruction. Asking for Comey's loyalty is also, prima facie, not obstruction!
All true, and I agree, but the timing of firing Comey does make you go hmmm.
No..not really.......he should have been fired from day one....Trump tried to work with him and comey had the hate of the democrats...........so Trump fired him, thinking the democrats would approve and be happy.....remember those days..? When the democrats wanted him fired........then he fired him.....having been told he wasn't under investigation......and comy leaked to the press......He may now actually be in actual violation of federal law.....and he admitted it on television....in front of the senate...
Are you jealous of Jews? Seems like it.Nixon was innocent as well and would never have been convicted in a real court of law. Unfortunately, neither the Congress nor the media cares about justice. Watergate was the Jewish Triumphal March into the capital city.Nixon's situation was very different. He tampered with evidence, and lied while attempting to cover up a criminal act. .....Ok I did watch the whole thing Sunny and if this were the case Nixon would have gotten off Scott free..
So you voted for a kafir?You might attempt to watch the OP's video again.The answer to the first question is: Criminal obstruction of justice is broadly defined, and according to 18 U.S. Code § 1503, includes “any threatening letter or communication [which] influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”
The Criminal Resource Manual for U.S. attorneys points out that “the Supreme Court has concluded that ‘endeavor’ is broader than ‘attempt’” — and quotes the court stating that in the statute it means “any effort or essay to accomplish the evil purpose that the section was enacted to prevent.” Therefore, says the Justice Department, “it follows that an endeavor to obstruct justice need not be successful to be criminal.”
A Short History of Presidential Obstruction of Justice
Alan Dershowits explains in detail why Pres. Trump is within his Constitutional rights as president concerning Comey. ....
A former counsel to the Watergate investigation says there is enough there to warrant a obstruction of justice charge against Trump if Mueller wanted one. There are different opinions.
Yeah..no. If the democrats have the votes they can impeach regardless of Trump not doing anything wrong....
I've been asking all along... If the investigations continue, how were they obstructed? Nothing Trump has done had any effect on the investigations. He may have asked Comey to ease off Flynn or make it clear he wasn't personally under investigation, but that's not obstruction. Asking for Comey's loyalty is also, prima facie, not obstruction!
All true, and I agree, but the timing of firing Comey does make you go hmmm.
Comey did nothing to deserve being fired. Trump himself said it was because of the Russia investigation.
. The fact is that he refused to make a public statement about Trump not being investigated showed that he believed the possibility existed Trump could come under investigation.
You are insane.LOL Really frosts your agates to realize that the fat senile old orange clown cannot get away with obstruction of justice, doesn't it. You long for a person like Putin or Pol Pot.The answer to the first question is: Criminal obstruction of justice is broadly defined, and according to 18 U.S. Code § 1503, includes “any threatening letter or communication [which] influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”
Hey pencil-dick. The President said to James "Bitch" Comey, I hope you can let this go. Flynn is a good man who has been treated unjustly.
And that was it by Comey's own snippy testimony.
If you think that was obstruction of justice, you belong in a gulag. Idiot.
Are you a Jew?Are you jealous of Jews? Seems like it.Nixon was innocent as well and would never have been convicted in a real court of law. Unfortunately, neither the Congress nor the media cares about justice. Watergate was the Jewish Triumphal March into the capital city.Nixon's situation was very different. He tampered with evidence, and lied while attempting to cover up a criminal act. .....Ok I did watch the whole thing Sunny and if this were the case Nixon would have gotten off Scott free..
Put on your objectivity hat if you can find it for a second. Trump asked Comey to stay on as director of the FBI, asked for his loyalty, asked for him to let the Flynn thing go, then proceeded to compliment Comey on the excellent job he was doing. Once Trump saw that Comey was not dropping the investigation he fired him. Im not saying that is lock n key obstruction but it is dangerously close. The firing was the action that could be taken as intent to slow, prohibit, discourage they continuation of an investigation that Trump obviously wants to be over. If the investigation had nothing to do with Trumps campaign then I'd agree with your point and Dershowitz's point but its more complicated than that. Do you really not see the issue here?I've been asking all along... If the investigations continue, how were they obstructed? Nothing Trump has done had any effect on the investigations. He may have asked Comey to ease off Flynn or make it clear he wasn't personally under investigation, but that's not obstruction. Asking for Comey's loyalty is also, prima facie, not obstruction!
Firing the director of the body investigating him or his campaign
Did that action obstruct the investigation, yes or no?
Sometime prior to asking him to drop a politically damaging investigation.I've been asking all along... If the investigations continue, how were they obstructed? Nothing Trump has done had any effect on the investigations. He may have asked Comey to ease off Flynn or make it clear he wasn't personally under investigation, but that's not obstruction. Asking for Comey's loyalty is also, prima facie, not obstruction!
All true, and I agree, but the timing of firing Comey does make you go hmmm.
What would've been a "good time" to fire an incompetent FBI Director?
