monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

OBSTRUCTOR-in_CHIEF, seems appropriate.

More appropriate to outlaw the Democratic Party.

@oralloy,

I didn't pick up on that oralloy, but you're right. DAs endeavor to influence investigations all of the time. Let's give Debra the benefit of the doubt though and assume she miss worded her comment.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Who the hell are you Nostradamus?

I'm someone with eyes. I use them to observe reality.

farmerman wrote:

As its been said amply and repeatedly, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE requires no underlying crime,

I haven't heard it said, but so what? That is hardly an issue of contention here.

As has actually been repeatedly said here, obstruction refers ONLY to very specific types of acts. And nothing that Trump has been accused of fits any of the prohibited acts.

farmerman wrote:

(Although we aint even hardly begun the investigation phase)

The sooner we outlaw the Democratic Party, the sooner we can stop the witch hunts.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

We are into OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, with a side dish of COVER UP.

No we aren't.

We are into the Democrats abusing the law to conduct witch hunts against people who disagree with them.

The solution is to outlaw the Democratic Party in America.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

So true. And I'm no lawyer but isn't it true that all that has to be proved is there was an attempt to influence or obstruct?

An attempt to do something that is not obstruction would hardly count as an attempt to obstruct.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Oh, one more thing — Rubio's comment — exactly who would be in a position to say that Mr. Trump was not the subject of an investigation? Isn't that sort of like trying to "prove a negative"? The only way a leak like that would seem believable would be if the identity of the leaker were known. Otherwise any schmoe could make up anything — I think the fact that no one leaked that he was being investigated would form sufficient evidence to ease the conscience of an innocent man.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Whats really funny though is that you guys wanna give Trump a pass over some things that are very similar to what you wanted to "STRING HER UP" about.
Shoe, meet other foot

I am unclear as to what you are referring to here.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I've never questioned whether or not you are actually a lawyer, but with the internet, who knows?

This guy is a very definitely a lawyer and he disagrees with you.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448209/james-comey-president-trump-obstruction-justice-didnt-happen

I'm not a lawyer. I haven't been a lawyer for many years.

Maybe a toddler would accept that lemon drop offered in the link you provided, but I'm not a toddler either. His opinion doesn't have any support. I urge you to do some actual research on the matter and educate yourself.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Well if you have training in the law you should be able to mount a better counter-argument than a sneering dismissal of someone with a legal pedigree that I fully suspect dwarfs your own.

Keep searching the internet though. Some liberal legal scholar is bound to try and you can parrot his or her argument.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Oh c'mon now.

With all of the fallacious leaks by "sources familiar with the investigation" one could easily leaked "President Trump isn't the target of the investigation." After all, Comey admitted it was the case.

I'm not sure you are aware of this but one of these impeccable sources told the NY Times, before Comey, testified, that he wouldn't comment on obstruction of justice, but would deny he told the president he wasn't under investigation on three separate occasions.

Surely if these sources could leak bullshit for the good of the American people, one of them might have leaked a not insignificant truth

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

With all of the fallacious leaks by "sources familiar with the investigation" one could easily leaked "President Trump isn't the target of the investigation."

And everyone who supports Trump would believe it; everyone opposed would doubt it. Leaks, unlike verified factual accounts, are only effective for a little while, and only among a certain audience. If you don't like the content of a "leaked" story you can just make up your mind that it's false, exaggerated, or malicious. None of the right wing crowd here just sits back and accepts the parade of embarrassing White House leaks as "the truth". That's why Trump's preoccupation with the matter looks so suspicious to me.

It's politics, man.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Surely if these sources could leak bullshit for the good of the American people, one of them might have leaked a not insignificant truth

You're right, Finn, but it need not be a matter of "leaking" in the first place. As I have previously noted, Comey, in his own testimony, said he would have been willing to "announce" that Trump was not under investigation if someone "in the justice department" had asked him to.

Nothing "illegal" or inherently "improper" about making such an announcement--not in Comey's mind, anyway.

But the Prez presides over the "justice department," so why would he refuse to compy with such a request from the very top?

Kinda curious, aint it?

Is there any other employee in the world stupid enough to refuse to perform a perfectly legitimate task when the CEO asks him to, on the grounds that only his immediate supervisor can tell him what to do?

I don't think so. Homey don't play dat.

1 Reply

Trump under oath. Interesting prospect. What, in his mind, would constitute an oath in the way we normally think of this?

"I swear on the breasts and rump of a super model"

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I've never questioned whether or not you are actually a lawyer, but with the internet, who knows?

This guy is a very definitely a lawyer and he disagrees with you.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448209/james-comey-president-trump-obstruction-justice-didnt-happen

I linked this earlier. Opinions from 16 legal scholars

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/08/james-comey-trump-russia-hearing-reaction-analysis-legal-experts-215239

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Trump under oath. Interesting prospect. What, in his mind, would constitute an oath in the way we normally think of this?

"I swear on the breasts and rump of a super model"

I know, right? Like lying under oath would have some significance to this POS.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

As I have previously noted, Comey, in his own testimony, said he would have been willing to "announce" that Trump was not under investigation if someone "in the justice department" had asked him to.

Nothing "illegal" or inherently "improper" about making such an announcement--not in Comey's mind, anyway.

But the Prez presides over the "justice department," so why would he refuse to compy with such a request from the very top?

Kinda curious, aint it?

This, illustrates beyond the shadow of a doubt, [it was already crystal clear] that you know nothing about the rule of law, layman.

A president has no greater right to ask these kinds of questions about himself or others. There is a very good reason for this. All citizens are equal before the law. A politician should not be getting information about people being investigated, and when it's about the politician in question, it is the height of impropriety [look it up] to ask such a question.

Trump does not deserve more than the average citizen deserves. Asking such a question illustrates that Trump knows as little about the rule of law as you.

That's ******* scary!

1 Reply

@camlok,

Hahahahaha! Rave on, foo.

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

I know, right? Like lying under oath would have some significance to this POS.

Lots of USA politicians pop into mind in this regard, Snood. What's your point?

Hells bells, you are as dishonest as Trump!

0 Replies

Vox has a piece up that everyone should look at. They've charted the content of media coverage of the Comey hearing. The visual representation of their data is striking (understatement). Our right wing comrades here will take the wrong lesson entirely from this data for the reasons we all understand. But everyone else needs to be clear about how modern right wing media operates.

Quote:

Framing all information as partisan
We’ve done a few of these pieces comparing right-wing media to mainstream media, and we can continue to draw out these differences. But perhaps the most dangerous part of the right-wing media’s coverage is that it frames all information as partisan.

That is the big lie that under-girds almost all right wing media and it is the device whereby any disagreeable information can be dismissed out of hand. That's how they get to conclusions which are utterly preposterous and irrational, such as:

Comey is a liar.
Trump speaks the truth.
Vox

2 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

Like lying under oath would have some significance to this POS.

Yes. Acute legal jeopardy would probably catch his attention - and that of his lawyers, of course. But he clearly has no moral conscience of the sort that would lead him to refrain from falsehoods and given his broad and deep experience with telling lies and getting away with it, only very daft individuals might imagine an oath having any determinative influence on him.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know