monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

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.

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

Yes, Finn dAbuzz. You repeatedly demean me and my contributions to the discussion. You can play coy and pretend something otherwise, but you're not fooling me with your tactics. But if it makes you happy to do so, carry on.

Incredibly, your claims are even weaker than Giujohn's.

What law do you, or does he allege, the president would be assuring the enforcement of in selectively attempting to direct investigations by the FBI?

What executive authority of which the president has 100%, do you allege entitles the president to selectively direct FBI investigations?

The head of the FBI is the Director. If he does not direct investigations, but rather, the president does so, what's his purpose?

The pedigree means nothing. It's the substance that counts. And it takes the ability to engage in critical thinking to analyze the substance.

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.

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? Donald Trump is not a prosecutor. What does any of this have to do with a kingpin? Why are you still wandering in the land of the absurd?

You, not me, posted the contention that an endeavor to influence an investigation was evidence of obstruction.

I've cited an example of where an official might legitimately do this. Would he or she be guilty of obstruction? Yes or no? Words are important, particularly for lawyers. If this contention is untrue why should anyone have faith in the other ones you have advanced?

Your trying to present yourself as a legal authority here so you're not going to get the benefit of my doubt.

Incredibly, your claims are even weaker than Giujohn's. What law do you, or does he allege, the president would be assuring the enforcement of in selectively attempting to direct investigations by the FBI? What executive authority of which the president has 100%, do you allege entitles the president to selectively direct FBI investigations? The head of the FBI is the Director. If he does not direct investigations, but rather, the president does so, what's his purpose? Is the Director just a political crony who gets a cool office and a chauffeured car? I'm sure President Plump would like to think so.

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

Assume that coveting thy neighbour's wife was a criminal offence. I am currently not under investigation for this. Therefore I am innocent.

That's my reading of Hightor's post.

The president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

Yet virtually every Democratic pundit, in their haste to “get” President Trump, has willfully ignored these realities. In doing so they have endangered our civil liberties and constitutional rights.

So let’s move on and learn all the facts regarding the Russian efforts to intrude on American elections without that investigation being impeded by frivolous efforts to accuse President Trump of committing a crime by exercising his constitutional authority.

Another important aspect is the integrity and independence of the FBI. This is something we must safeguard and hold precious if we wish to remain a nation of laws and not of men. If the bureau is merely a tool for the president's use whenever he wants to punish his enemies (or political adversaries) or safeguard his friends, then our country is no better than a despotic third-world country. The thing that must and should set us above others is our adherence to the rule of law.

Comey is a liar.
Trump speaks the truth.

oralloy offering his uninformed opinions AGAIN, legal things that he knows nothing about. No sources EVER.

Read the statute that I already provided, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c). It starts with "Whoever corruptly . . ." That's the mens rea. Look at court cases that have defined the word "corruptly" to see what it means, i.e., how have our courts applied the mens rea element of the offense to the facts and circumstances set forth in the case. If a prosecutor corruptly influences an official proceeding, then yes ... a prosecutor could be charged with the offense.