monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Especially when the person being investigated is the the person doing the firing, and that person is guilty; ie, Nixon hisself!

When it's a case in which you are one of the people that may be directly involved, and you quash the investigation, that's obstruction, no way around it.

The break in was a felony, and they're not trivial. Your objections, on the other hand, are trivial.

The break in was a felony, and they're not trivial.

Your objections, on the other hand, are trivial.

whole lotta legal scholars would disagree.

Not trivial - the objections are corrupt, immoral, depraved, degenerate, reprobate, vice-ridden, perverted, debauched, dissolute, dissipated, bad, wicked, evil, base, sinful, ungodly, unholy, irreligious, profane, impious, impure.

The entire government, vboth political parties, yes, the Republicans were aghst at Nixon, the Plumbers' breakin which was WAY beyond the pale for political "spying", to use your term,

Sorry, oralloy, it was no witch hunt.

Nixon was WAY outside the rules,

and it led to his resignation before he surely would have been censured and, bipartisanly, found guilty.

oralloy wrote:

Can any of these alleged scholars cite a law that actually says what you claimed?

yep

That a witch hunt jails people over trivial offenses does not change that they are trivial offenses.

That is incorrect. If deciding that an investigation should not be pursued were obstruction of justice, every prosecutor and law enforcement officer in the nation would be guilty of obstruction, as they decide not to pursue cases all the time.

No, it means the perps committed a jailable crime. And you can't argue that these crimes were minor but overprosecuted in this case since people go to jail all the time for burglary and breaking and entering.

You are incorrect. You can decide a case not be pursued becaue it's not winnable, but not pursuing a case because you have an interest in the truth not coming out is obstruction of justice.

Let me explain it to you this way: ripping up a piece of paper is not a crime. Ripping up a piece of paper because it would lead to a case against me is obstruction of justice.

I'm for unions, but not for a teacher's union that is so powerful that it damages education, and forces people to fund that damage.

A school district in Louisiana has vowed to punish players who refuse to stand for the US national anthem, as other schools weigh in on the debate.
In their decision, the Bossier Parish School Board cited "respect and reverence" for the military, a spokesperson told the BBC.
A number of National Football League (NFL) players have protested after being attacked by the US president.
Activists say the law bans schools from punishing non-disruptive protesters.
In Louisiana, the head of Parkway High School wrote a letter on Thursday morning to parents and students vowing to suspend or remove from sports teams anyone who demonstrates while the national anthem is played.
"Failure to comply will result in a loss of playing time and/or participation as directed by the head coach and principal. Continued failure to comply will result in removal from the team," principal Waylon Bates wrote.

The US Senate Intelligence Committee has criticised Twitter for offering an "inadequate" appearance in briefings on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Democratic Senator Mark Warner said the briefings were "deeply disappointing".
The social network earlier said it had shut down about 200 accounts linked to a Russian misinformation campaign.
It follows a review by Facebook which found Russian-funded adverts helping to spread false misinformation online.
Twitter said it found a match for 22 of roughly 450 accounts Facebook shared, and another 179 "linked accounts".
Russia has repeatedly denied claims that it interfered in the US elections.
Twitter made the announcement as it briefed members of the US government behind closed doors.
Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are looking into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election - something the Kremlin strongly denies.
The Facebook case involved thousands of adverts, purchased in Russia, which directed users towards hundreds of different Facebook accounts.
Those accounts did not support any particular candidate, but instead posted inflammatory information on hot topics such as immigration.
In one example, CNN reported an advert referencing the Black Lives Matter movement was deliberately targeted to reach people in Ferguson, Missouri - home to violent protests over the shooting of unarmed black men by police officers from late 2014.
Twitter said it had banned all accounts found to break its rules, including rules on spam. Unlike the Facebook investigation, none was registered as an advertiser, it said.
The company also revealed that accounts belonging to state-funded Russian media network Russia Today - which it said had "strong links to the Russian government" - had spent about $274,100 on ads targeting the US market during 2016. However, paying social networks to promote tweets is a common strategy among media organisations.
Twitter's banning of the accounts has not placated lawmakers, according to reports.
Senator Warner said Twitter's appearance at the joint committee session was disappointing and revealed little new information.
"Their response was, frankly, inadequate on almost every level," he told reporters.
His party colleague on the House committee, Adam Schiff, said Twitter had taken only "remedial steps" against accounts linked to Russia.
"We look forward to hearing more from Twitter as we continue to investigate how Russia sought to push disinformation and fake news through the use of bots and false personas to influence the outcome of the election," he said.
Twitter said it would continue to investigate.
Thursday's intelligence committee briefings were closed, and it is not clear if additional information was shared with lawmakers beyond what Twitter wrote in its public blog post.
"Due to the nature of these inquiries, we may not always be able to publicly share what we discuss with investigators. And there will always be tools or methods we cannot talk about, because doing so would only help bad actors circumvent them," the company said.
Both Facebook and Twitter, along with Google, are expected to be invited to appear in separate open sessions before both intelligence committees in the coming months.