monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Quote:

Not being under investigation is pretty damned good assurance that one isn't guilty. If not guilty, then they must be innocent.

Hmm...interesting take on it. But I disagree — innocence is meaningless unless indictments leading to charges are involved. The law says the speed limit on a causeway that I drive on a nearly daily basis is 40 mph. I've admittedly hit speeds of 50 mph or more on this route. I haven't been caught (yet) and as far as I know I am not the subject of an investigation — but I would not claim to be "innocent".

This sounds nice and high minded but did you express the same outrage when it was learned HRC threatened someone with an IRS audit?

The fact of the matter is that the FBI is not independent of the Executive branch or the President. It must remain independent of corrupt influence as you argue, but that hardly means Comey should have been free to run the FBI anyway he thought was proper.

You find this problematic but not Trump is a liar, Comey speaks the truth?

Your conceit is unassailable--but not either your knowledge of the constitution nor of legal statute.

If you are someone's employer, and you order them to do an illegal act, you are just as culpable as that poor fool if he or she carries out your wishes.

I suspect that your adulation of President Plump blinds you to logic as well as knowledge of the constitution and of law.

The president proposes, but Congress disposes. If at any time, Congress were not happy with the FBI, the constitution gives them to power not only to create executive branch agencies, but to abolish them, too.

Furthermore, as defined by the Supremes in Morrison versus Olson, 1988, the Director of the FBI is an inferior executive branch officer, and can only be appointed or dismissed with congressional approval.

The only thing unassailable about your posts is your display of invincible ignorance.

Now if I were guilty of a crime and knew that there was only one guy who could bring me down, but I could cement his loyalty (and silence) by giving him a full pardon, I don't think I take the chance of just trying to pressure the DA.

So you believe Comey is a paragon of virtue or a less obvious liar?

Now if I were guilty of a crime and knew that there was only one guy who could bring me down, but I could cement his loyalty (and silence) by giving him a full pardon, I don't think I take the chance of just trying to pressure the DA. I'd save my ass and worry about the fallout afterwards.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Now if I were guilty of a crime and knew that there was only one guy who could bring me down, but I could cement his loyalty (and silence) by giving him a full pardon, I don't think I take the chance of just trying to pressure the DA. I'd save my ass and worry about the fallout afterwards.

Try again. Presidents have tried to stop investigations of people close to them before. Your tortured excuse is shot down.

And therefore Trump must be doing the same?

Comey's been around a long time, and nobody has challenged his honesty.

I

Don't twist my words. You tried to dismiss the idea as absurd that if Trump wanted to stop an investigation, he would pressure the head of the agency investigating him. I merely pointed out that Presidents have done that before, so the idea is not absurd, as you would characterize it.

I don't understand your point (or how it contradicts Finn's point).

Surely you agree that presidents have the power to pardon federal offenses?