monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

The fact that Clinton wasn't convicted doesn't give the next guy a free pass.

Yes of course, you're right. The key is "corruption" and not simply an endeavor to influence an investigation.

As McCarthy noted in his article prosecutors exercise influence on not only investigations but criminal proceedings by exercising discretion. Comey exercised discretion in relation to HRC and I'm not sure that was even within his authority, but if it is and if (as we know to be the case) the AG can exercise discretion, so can their boss. If he was urging Comey to give a good guy who has suffered enough a break that's not corrupt

The primary difference between your argument and McCarthy's is interpretation of the facts, but that's not the lawyer's role it is the judge's or jury's. You don't have to agree with opposing counsel's arguments, but it's rarely smart to dismiss them out of hand as childish.

What I object to are lawyers who are offering "legal opinions" that Comey made or just about made a clear case for obstruction charges; for partisan political purposes (e.g. Lawrence Tribe) i.e. to damage the president of the United States.

On more than one occasion I've argued than citizens not directly involved in a legal proceeding are under no obligation to assume innocence until guilt is proven, but it seems to me that if someone is offering a legal opinion based on their professional education, experience and credentials they ought to at least keep it in mind until a lot more facts are known

Van Jones: Clinton Campaign 'Took a Billion Dollars and Set It on Fire'

Liberal commentator Van Jones blasted the Clinton presidential campaign for setting $1 billion "on fire."

Speaking at "The People's Summit" convention in Chicago, Jones said Democrats were "tricked into fighting among ourselves over the wrong issues.

He said the Clinton campaign did none of the above and spent the money on "themselves" by hiring consultants and pollsters.

"They took a billion dollars... and set it on fire and called it a campaign," Jones said.

"You need to give the money back to the people, period," Jones said. "Quit getting rich off people's struggles."

He said that they acted like they had to choose between a focus on "people of color, racial justice, ... or the white working class."

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Yes of course, you're right. The key is "corruption" and not simply an endeavor to influence an investigation.

It's not "corruption". Corruption is a thing, whereas "corruptly" is a state of mind, i.e., consciousness of wrongdoing. And I addressed Trump's state of mind in my initial post on this matter.

Now your talking like a lawyer...please forgive me this most significant mistake.

Trump himself admitted on national television that he made up his mind to fire Comey because of the ongoing FBI investigation of his campaign and Russia's meddling in our election. He wanted to get rid of that cloud hanging over his head ... to hell with the country ... he was only thinking of himself.

So? The guy can be a self-centered ass without being a criminal.

Maybe now that Trump's endeavor or attempt to obstruct was unsuccessful, Flynn will come forward and talk. Time will tell.

Quote:

As McCarthy noted in his article prosecutors exercise influence on not only investigations but criminal proceedings by exercising discretion. Comey exercised discretion in relation to HRC and I'm not sure that was even within his authority, but if it is and if (as we know to be the case) the AG can exercise discretion, so can their boss. If he was urging Comey to give a good guy who has suffered enough a break that's not corrupt

Trump was not Comey's boss in any ordinary sense. The FBI is not Trump's business or personal bureau that he can rein in or sic upon anyone according to his own whims.

It is very clear that the FBI is part of the Executive branch and not a separate branch of government. Arguments about what POTUS can and cannot do as respects the FBI, with the exception of corrupt acts, are about propriety not legality.

If you were an employer in an at-will state, then you have the right to fire an employee for any reason you want except for an unlawful reason. By analogy, the same holds true for Trump and he admitted that he fired Comey because of the bureau's probe into Russia's meddling in our election and his campaign's involvement in that meddling. And remember, the probe had two interrelated facets: the criminal investigation and the intelligence investigation. Comey was reporting to congressional committees that were holding official proceedings on those matters. And Trump fired him!

Thus far you are basing all of your arguments on Comey's testimony and leaks with one Trump comment that you have twisted to fit your argument. Assuming Trump makes good on his promise to testify under oath, it's likely he will say that he fired Comey for his mismanagement of the investigation. You, most likely, will in turn claim that he is lying, but if no one can prove such a thing your claim will be meaningless.

This matter is not as simple as "giving a good guy a break" as you allege. There's more to it, and to allege otherwise is disingenuous.

Sez you. Such an argument may or may not be permitted in a closing argument (I really don't know) but it's merely opinion.

Quote:

The primary difference between your argument and McCarthy's is interpretation of the facts, but that's not the lawyer's role it is the judge's or jury's. You don't have to agree with opposing counsel's arguments, but it's rarely smart to dismiss them out of hand as childish.

Are you still talking about that same guy who said "pressure is not obstruction"? Lemon drop, lemon drop, lemon drop. Call me childish again, I don't care. I've already shown you that your man's thesis was erroneous.

No you haven't at all, although I'm sure you think you did. Simply arguing that "pressure" is synonymous with "corrupt influence" doesn't defeat his argument

You really need to remove that chip from your shoulder and dive into the adult swim pool. I didn't call you childish, I said you characterized McCarthy's opinion as childish. Lemon drop, lemon drop, lemon drop. Stop sucking on them and perhaps you won't be so sour.

Quote:

What I object to are lawyers who are offering "legal opinions" that Comey made or just about made a clear case for obstruction charges; for partisan political purposes (e.g. Lawrence Tribe) i.e. to damage the president of the United States.

On more than one occasion I've argued than citizens not directly involved in a legal proceeding are under no obligation to assume innocence until guilt is proven, but it seems to me that if someone is offering a legal opinion based on their professional education, experience and credentials they ought to at least keep it in mind until a lot more facts are known

Well, lawyers are people too ... and they have the right to freedom of speech just like you. Object? Doesn't matter. I think your motivations are suspect too. Does that mean your voice should be silenced? No, it doesn't.

The significant difference is that I don't contribute to this forum with the screen name Finn Law and I don't offer any of my opinions as based on legal training and experience. You do. Your absolutely entitled to express your opinions, but just don't try and tell us they are legal opinions unless you intend to remain in character throughout.

The significant difference is that I don't contribute to this forum with the screen name Finn Law and I don't offer any of my opinions as based on legal training and experience. You do. Your absolutely entitled to express your opinions, but just don't try and tell us they are legal opinions unless you intend to remain in character throughout.

This is a good point because the voices assuring us that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, relative to the Flynn investigation, assume he had something to hide (The usual bullshit about smoke and fire) and was desperate.

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.

Of course the expected response to this is "It just goes to show you what an idiot Trump is, he probably didn't even know about presidential pardons"

Flynn's lawyer, Robert Kelner, confirmed in a statement that discussions had taken place with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and said "General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it."

As a lawyer you should know that a request for immunity is not an admission of guilt.

.... I always recognized the ones who knew what they were talking about and the ones who were talking out of their asses.

Debra's failing is that she doesn't cite case law or construct arguments around it.

He's just now learning that the "identity poltics" which the Democratic Party thrives on is "divisive," and designed only to enrich and empower themselves? He aint real quick on the uptake, eh?

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.

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.