monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Debra Law,

Prove you're the legal scholar you represent yourself as (with your comments), and spare me the thin skin. I can go back and find any number of posts where you've demeaned and dismissed my posts. Trial law is an adversarial practice, either you never practiced it or you've lost your edge.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

That's good to know. His preamble is disingenuous, but the question is pertinent.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I don't have any great investment in either Mr. Comey or #45 being terrific humans. I don't have the feels for either of them. I think one is lying or at the very least, lying more than the other. Bring on the tapes.

My US lawyer buds told me yesterday told me that if the tapes/recordings do exist and #45 doesn't produce them (and someone else does produce them), there's another problem for #45.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

They are all DC creatures

#45 isn't and I think that is where Mr. Comey miscalculated.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Amazingly, some of those people are administrators on college campuses in this country where, if a female accuses a male of rape, he will be expelled unless he can prove he didn't to it (not likely to be possible)>

One absolute way to prove you didn't rape somebody is to make them pay for it by check. Could even be some nominal fee, a dollar or two...

Does that mean I can only slip the head in?

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Who would let you, except layman, gunga, ... .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Just like George Castanza was unclear that screwing the office cleaning staff was cause for termination.

George: "Was that wrong?"

0 Replies

@farmerman,

It's really odd, all you folks going on and on about these little illegalities but never any mention from you upstanding folks about the myriad war crimes, the terrorism, the ... .

0 Replies

@oralloy,

No facts, always oralloy uninformed opinion. Even gunga provides "sources".

0 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

Even if an obstruction can't be proven by a court of law, in the court of public opinion and common sense, it is clear (if folks are honest with themselves) Trump attempted to extract loyality from Comey. He tried to influence Comey to let the Flynn investigation go. The excuses the big wigs in the republican party pretty much tells it all when they say, he don't know any better or it was just a light weight thing. They know Trump did something improper and crossed a line he shouldn't have, but they don't care. They care too much about ripping off everybody but the richest in America and they know Trump will do it with his policies and his main base who voted for him and showed up at his rallies shouting out "lock her up" or "build a wall" are just too out there to know they have been conned. If the main republicans (the ones who would have rather hand Pence or another republican but went with Trump in the end out of no choice) cared about the country they live in, they would bring up a political solution for the political problem that is Trump. Impeachment. But they won't because they don't care. IMO

There is still a slither of hope Muhler (however you spell his name) will end up getting Trump, but otherwise, we are stuck with a lying bully despot of a president.

And you of course have independent evidence that he demanded loyalty and tried to influence Comey right.

Where or what is this line you speak of...can you define or quantify it for us?

Using you standard I can easily say that the only reason that Comey when to see Trump about the "dossier" was to attempt a J Edgar moment to let Trump know he had some salacious gossip and to assure him he wasn't under investigation for it...but documented some false claims to use if he was fired.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

As I said, you're whistling past the graveyard. It certainly took you a long time to dredge that up, and it doesn't answer the question. This was your post:

giujohn wrote:

Oh really? So if I'm the president and I say drop the investigation I'm pardoning Flynn what do you think the FBI is going do...keep it going? The president most certainly has the Constitutional authority to direct any government investigation unless the law (like the independent prosecutor law) prohibits it.

Your citation of constitutional authority does not state or imply that the president has the authority to direct any government investigations. Do you allege that the president has a legal obligation to direct investigations? Your language is ambiguous. Are you saying he can pick and choose which investigations he wants to direct, ignoring the others?

In fact, the presidency is not a powerful office. But the right-wing troglodytes who have been making wild claims about his accomplishments seem to think he's a king, not the president. Is that your attitude?

Your response is an absolute fail.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Prove you're the legal scholar you represent yourself as (with your comments), and spare me the thin skin. I can go back and find any number of posts where you've demeaned and dismissed my posts. Trial law is an adversarial practice, either you never practiced it or you've lost your edge.

Oh and Debra, don't forget to supply mr noisy with your transcripts and evidence of any honor societies you belong to. Also it would be wise to provide him evidence of your involvement in spectacular court cases, but just the ones you win. Ol Finn doesn't tolerate losers in the ranks of A2K. Also, your blood type, SSN# and other proof you actually exist. The reason for this is that Finn doesn't know many smart people, and although he might not recognize the significance of your accomplishments, ( I have no idea what his professional claim to fame is) it will slow him down a little while he contours up a reason why you are never going to be as smart as our ol Finn.

Also Debra, I doubt he was ever involved in higher education say as an English teacher or Professor. Doesn't appear to be a scientist, certainly not a legal scholar, not probably a lot of things. But no matter, he doesn't actually have to be skilled at anything in order to offer insulting or snide remarks to others. If I were you I would resist the urge (ha) to provide a lenghly explanation to anyone too lazy to do their own reasearch. You provided enough for the curious to explore farther if they wished.

By the way, always good to see you here. Cheers

2 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

The Democrats, and five Republicans, correctly gauging the sentiment of the citizenry, decided that the offenses did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

If obstruction of justice does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, then the Democrats have no business complaining if a Republican president were ever to commit obstruction.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

We have Comey's testimony, I believe under oath, and a contemporaneous account of what went on, versus Trumps not under oath off the cuff months later rant, from a known multiple liar I'd go with Comey.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

There you go again, demeaning my existence.

You have a big mouth and you routinely talk about things that you don't understand. A bit of derision towards you is entirely appropriate.

Debra Law wrote:

Here is the relevant language in 18 USC 1512(c):

(c)Whoever corruptly—

(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

Under the clear language of this statute an attempt to influence is just as unlawful as actual influence.

The law is talking about things that mislead an investigation and throw it off the trail that it is pursuing. The law is not talking about an official decision to not investigate.

Debra Law wrote:

Your statement that the word in question is "influence" and not "attempt" is absurd in many ways, and in particular, it is absurd within the context of our conversation. Remember, you're the one who hung his hat on the thesis "pressure is not obstruction" based solely on the speaker's pedigree.

You refuse to admit that pressure can be an endeavor or an attempt to obstruct, which is unlawful under obstruction statutes. Thus, the speaker's thesis is erroneous.

Discretion as to whether to pursue a matter to begin with, though, is not unlawful under obstruction (or any other) statutes.

Debra Law wrote:

Your meager attempt thus far at self-education is unavailing.

You remain the only person here who is in desperate need of an education.

Debra Law wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Do you deny that prosecutors will very often seek to influence criminal investigations? If the authorities are spending too much time trailing flunkies and not tailing a kingpin they will attempt to influence (if not direct) them to spend more time on the kingpin. Are they then all guilty of obstruction?

WTF is your point?

His point was pretty clear to everyone who understands the law. Prosecutorial discretion is not obstruction.

Debra Law wrote:

Donald Trump is not a prosecutor.

As President, he has complete control over all federal prosecutors.

Debra Law wrote:

What does any of this have to do with a kingpin?

The reference to a kingpin was an example of prosecutorial discretion.

Debra Law wrote:

Why are you still wandering in the land of the absurd?

Your ignorance of basic legal issues does not mean that legal arguments are absurd.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm not prepared to state that Trump hasn't committed a crime.

I am. It is pretty clear that Trump was not involved in any collusion, and that collusion is not a crime regardless.

It is also pretty clear that everything that Trump has been accused of doing does not meet any definition of obstruction of justice (or any similar crime).

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

We have Comey's testimony, I believe under oath

Yes, it was under oath. Thus Trump has accused Comey of committing a felony.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Prove you're the legal scholar you represent yourself as (with your comments), and spare me the thin skin. I can go back and find any number of posts where you've demeaned and dismissed my posts. Trial law is an adversarial practice, either you never practiced it or you've lost your edge.

I don't need to parade my scholastic achievements, college degrees, juris doctorate, continuing education, and legal experience as a prerequisite to participating on this thread. I encourage self-education. Personally, I probably read more in a single day than most people I know read in an entire year.

I posted my thoughts on the facts and reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them with regard Trump's outrageous conduct. You don't have to read my posts. You can put me on ignore or scroll past my posts.

But it didn't escape my attention that you ignored the content of my post and attacked my character ... even suggesting I was a fake lawyer, this being online and all. That was a personal attack (logical fallacy) intended to demean me and my contributions to the discussion. You followed with an appeal to authority (logical fallacy) via an article written by someone you declared had the proper "pedigree".

The pedigree means nothing. It's the substance that counts. And it takes the ability to engage in critical thinking to analyze the substance. As previously noted, I characterized the speaker's thesis in that article as a lemon drop. But if all that matters to you is the speaker's pedigree, then the substance is irrelevant ... and that's a sad commentary on the lack of education of our citizenry.

We are a nation of laws. We have an hierarchy of laws, with the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Everything we do and say in this country is governed by the law. Why can't ALL of us speak about the law intelligently? That is the question.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your citation of constitutional authority does not state or imply that the president has the authority to direct any government investigations.

Article II. Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Setanta wrote:

Do you allege that the president has a legal obligation to direct investigations? Your language is ambiguous. Are you saying he can pick and choose which investigations he wants to direct, ignoring the others?

The authority is often delegated to the President's subordinates. But the ultimate executive power still resides with the President.

Setanta wrote:

In fact, the presidency is not a powerful office. But the right-wing troglodytes who have been making wild claims about his accomplishments seem to think he's a king, not the president. Is that your attitude?

There are certainly limitations on executive power in America. But what executive power does exist, the President has 100% of it.

1 Reply

Holy poop.

Quote:

More people watched Comey’s testimony than the NBA finals
Americans were far more interested in the former FBI director than LeBron James, according to Nielsen television ratings.

https://thinkprogress.org/comey-beats-lebron-tv-ratings-f36a02497af9

Polls over the next week ought to be interesting. Presently, Trump's approval is comparable to the number of individuals polled who respond positively to the question, "Would you enjoy it if a mortician put his hands in your mouth?"

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know