Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

[radical right]

Trump had every right to stop the Flynn investigation. He was Comey's boss.

I wish you tell that to Mueller That statement proves obstruction of justice.

Only an idiot thinks the fact that Trump can fire Comey means Trump cannot fire Comey.

You don't listen to yourself do you? You said:

Trump had every right to stop the Flynn investigation.

Which the president clearly does not.

 

[radical right]

You already got your ass handed to you, when you said hearsay wasn't admissible in court. Learn a lesson, lick your wounds, and stop claiming you know shit about law.

You have a vivid imagination, turd.

You denied the two dozen exceptions allowing hearsay to be admissible in court. That was just stupid of you.

 

[blackhawk]

Yet it was obstruction, just that Trump totally screwed it up. Instead of stopping it, he actually accelerated it.

So not stopping an investigation is now considered obstruction wow.

It's like trying to stop a speeding mac truck by standing in front of it. Trump tried to obstruct justice, and failed just like he did with repeal of Obamacare.

No he didn't try if he wanted to stop it he could have. By the way wasn't this investigation supposed to be about Russian interference in the 2016 election? Since that seems to be going nowhere I guess it's on to plan B obstruction of justice can't wait to see what plan C is.

 

[OKTexas]

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78

Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

The only meat I see is what you regressives seem to thrive on, assumptions, speculation and innuendo. Rational people don't find them filling.


.

Donnie Jr is now caught red handed colluding with Russians. The stupid clown left a paper trail and Mueller has the incriminating evidence.

Colluding with the Russians to do what, get possible dirt on the bitch? There's nothing illegal about that. The bitch and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier and tried to hide the money trail, was she also colluding with the Russians?


.

 

[dudmuck]

[
Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy. Plenty of experts have said there's nothing illegal about what Trump said to Comey.

Except Trump said the same thing to several other people, asking them to also lean on Comey So it's the pattern of Trump trying to stop the Flynn investigation. With the Comey meeting and Comey firing being just two bricks in the legal foundation.

Trump had every right to stop the Flynn investigation. He was Comey's boss.

The president cant obstruct justice. The president can fire the FBI director, but not for purpose of stopping an investigation.

 

[bripat9643]

And still no Russian connection

Trump associates had 9 meetings with the russians. They even traveled to russia to meet with the russians. But meeting with russians isn't illegal, unless you omit those meetings from your SF-86 or lie to federal agents that you had no contact with the russians.

If there are no russian connections,why are so many Trump associates lying about not having contacts.

Shaking someone's hand in front of 300 people is not a "meeting." The rest of the so-called "meetings" were similarly trivial.

The one thing you got right is the fact that they did nothing illegal.

 

[Rustic]

And still no Russian connection

Trump associates had 9 meetings with the russians. They even traveled to russia to meet with the russians. But meeting with russians isn't illegal, unless you omit those meetings from your SF-86 or lie to federal agents that you had no contact with the russians.

If there are no russian connections,why are so many Trump associates lying about not having contacts.

...and still no russian connection

 

[bripat9643]

[
Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy. Plenty of experts have said there's nothing illegal about what Trump said to Comey.

Except Trump said the same thing to several other people, asking them to also lean on Comey So it's the pattern of Trump trying to stop the Flynn investigation. With the Comey meeting and Comey firing being just two bricks in the legal foundation.

Trump had every right to stop the Flynn investigation. He was Comey's boss.

The president cant obstruct justice. The president can fire the FBI director, but not for purpose of stopping an investigation.

Wrong. What you're saying is that the President can never stop an investigation. That's idiotic, and obviously wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Bob Brigham
24 Nov 2017 at 20:58 ET
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookFacebook2.7KShare to TumblrTumblrShare to MoreMore78

Former Watergate prosecutors Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on Friday night to discuss the latest revelations about Michael Flynn potentially flipping and testifying against President Donald Trump.

Acknowledging her history, Hayes asked Wine-Banks whether there was enough evidence for an obstruction of justice charge against President Trump.

Two ex-Watergate prosecutors agree ‘there’s enough evidence right now to indict Donald Trump’

Wow, this nothingburger is piled high 10 feet high with every kind of meat you can think of. It is fucking juicy!!! Trump is fucking going down!

The only meat I see is what you regressives seem to thrive on, assumptions, speculation and innuendo. Rational people don't find them filling.


.

Donnie Jr is now caught red handed colluding with Russians. The stupid clown left a paper trail and Mueller has the incriminating evidence.

Colluding with the Russians to do what, get possible dirt on the bitch? There's nothing illegal about that. The bitch and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier and tried to hide the money trail, was she also colluding with the Russians?


.

No, because she's a Democrat. They're allowed to pay Russians for incriminating information on Republicans.

 

[radical right]

"Abuse of power?" That means it's perfectly legal, but petulant turds like you would cry about it.

You need to put a-hole after your name.

Pennsylvania attorney general resigns after abuse of power conviction

Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania’s first elected female attorney general, announced her resignation Tuesday, a day after being convicted of abusing the powers of the state’s top law enforcement office

 

[Rustic]

Where’s the beef...

 

[radical right]

Wrong. What you're saying is that the President can never stop an investigation. That's idiotic, and obviously wrong.

The president can stop any federal investigation by issuing a full pardon to the person being investigated.

But that's the only way.

 

[OKTexas]

One thing he did that was incredibly incompetant is go down the litany of evidence against Hillary, that irrefutably proved she committed crimes, and then claim she wasn't prosecutable.

Conviction requires mens rea, and Comey admitted Hillary acted out of negligence.

And that is the standard for prosecution under the law, it's one of the few federal statutes that don't require intent.


.

 

[bripat9643]

"Abuse of power?" That means it's perfectly legal, but petulant turds like you would cry about it.

You need to put a-hole after your name.

Pennsylvania attorney general resigns after abuse of power conviction

Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania’s first elected female attorney general, announced her resignation Tuesday, a day after being convicted of abusing the powers of the state’s top law enforcement office

The federal government isn't the state of Pennsylvania. What the statute says is that a among other things, a public official can't use public property or personal for non governmental purposes. For instance, when Conyers had staff members babysit his kids. Making decisions snowflakes don't like is not an "abuse of power."

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. What you're saying is that the President can never stop an investigation. That's idiotic, and obviously wrong.

The president can stop any federal investigation by issuing a full pardon to the person being investigated.

But that's the only way.

Horseshit. He simply has to order the FBI to terminate the investigation. Congress can decide to impeach him if they have the votes.

 

[OKTexas]

So you're saying the president can never tell the FBI not to investigate something? Really?

It's abuse of power for the president to call for an investigation, or to call off an investigation. BTW, that's also an impeachable offense.

You might want to read Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president is the only person charged by the Constitution to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. The DOJ and all it's appendages get their constitutional authority from him, not congress or anyone else.


.

 

[radical right]

And that is the standard for prosecution under the law, it's one of the few federal statutes that don't require intent.
.

Read the case law, which makes it require intent.

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

WHY INTENT, NOT GROSS NEGLIGENCE, IS THE STANDARD IN CLINTON CASE

Comey said there was insufficient evidence to show Clinton had malicious intent. Comey reasoned:

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States… We do not see those things here.

Many commentators have criticized Comey’s decision, arguing the statute Clinton was accused of violating, 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), requires only “gross negligence,” not intent.

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official

The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional.

 

[OKTexas]

"Abuse of power?" That means it's perfectly legal, but petulant turds like you would cry about it.

You need to put a-hole after your name.

Pennsylvania attorney general resigns after abuse of power conviction

Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania’s first elected female attorney general, announced her resignation Tuesday, a day after being convicted of abusing the powers of the state’s top law enforcement office

Apples and oranges. A State AG is elected, the US AG is not.


.

 

[radical right]

You might want to read Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president is the only person charged by the Constitution to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. The DOJ and all it's appendages get their constitutional authority from him, not congress or anyone else.


.

Faithfully executed means without political interference.

 

[easyt65]

Intent can not 100% be proven. Comey already declared Hillary was / is guilty of 'gross negligwnce'. There is an actual law, which Hillary violated, that covers that.

The Hillary Cover-Up is the most obvious crime cover-up in US history, considering how many laws were OBVIOUSLY violated.