(12-05-2017 12:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  a. Collusion is not illegal
b. The president cannot obstruct justice



In May 1977, three years after he resigned the presidency, Richard Nixon made a stunning declaration. The president, he told British journalist David Frost, in a series of historic interviews, is not bound by the same laws that apply to ordinary citizens. “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” he explained. Congress, which filed articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice in the Watergate affair, obviously disagreed. Yet 40 years later, Donald Trump’s legal team has revived Nixon’s reasoning. As special counsel Robert Mueller closes in on what appears to be an obstruction case against the president, Trump’s attorneys are publicly laying the groundwork to argue that he is immune to any charges that could precipitate impeachment.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/...estigation

Nixon refused to hand over the tapes. What is the Trump equivalent?

Who knows how this all plays out. I don't think firing Comey in and of itself reaches the level of obstruction of justice. However, coupled with the fact that he knew Flynn lied to the FBI before hand lends more credence to that theory.

The rumors however now are that his latest attacks on the FBI are laying the groundwork for firing Mueller.

I think if he does this, the republicans will cut him loose. Especially if they get tax reform through.

No, the FBI is a section of the department of Justice, part of the executive branch. the POTUS has the right to fire any of the FBI he wishes, to start or stop any investigation he wishes for whatever reason he wishes. He cannot obstruct an investigation he has every right to cancel. This "obstruction" bullshat is just pandering playing to the far left and their hatred for Trump.

If the POTUS abuses this power, Congress can impeach him. that's it.

If Trump wanted to protect Flynn he would have just pardoned him.

But as the FBI has said Flynn did nothing illegal in his actions with Russia. The only thing illegal was lying to the FBI about it.

Why did he lie to the FBI? Probably so he wouldn't be on record contradicting the VP who made a broad statement about no contact at all with Russia

(12-05-2017 01:36 PM)Oman Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  a. Collusion is not illegal
b. The president cannot obstruct justice



In May 1977, three years after he resigned the presidency, Richard Nixon made a stunning declaration. The president, he told British journalist David Frost, in a series of historic interviews, is not bound by the same laws that apply to ordinary citizens. “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” he explained. Congress, which filed articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice in the Watergate affair, obviously disagreed. Yet 40 years later, Donald Trump’s legal team has revived Nixon’s reasoning. As special counsel Robert Mueller closes in on what appears to be an obstruction case against the president, Trump’s attorneys are publicly laying the groundwork to argue that he is immune to any charges that could precipitate impeachment.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/...estigation

Nixon refused to hand over the tapes. What is the Trump equivalent?

Who knows how this all plays out. I don't think firing Comey in and of itself reaches the level of obstruction of justice. However, coupled with the fact that he knew Flynn lied to the FBI before hand lends more credence to that theory.

The rumors however now are that his latest attacks on the FBI are laying the groundwork for firing Mueller.

I think if he does this, the republicans will cut him loose. Especially if they get tax reform through.

No, the FBI is a section of the department of Justice, part of the executive branch. the POTUS has the right to fire any of the FBI he wishes, to start or stop any investigation he wishes for whatever reason he wishes. He cannot obstruct an investigation he has every right to cancel. This "obstruction" bullshat is just pandering playing to the far left and their hatred for Trump.

If the POTUS abuses this power, Congress can impeach him. that's it.

I think you are mistaken. I seriously doubt that Trump could stop this investigation. If he could, he would have done it when he fired Comey.

(12-05-2017 12:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  a. Collusion is not illegal
b. The president cannot obstruct justice



In May 1977, three years after he resigned the presidency, Richard Nixon made a stunning declaration. The president, he told British journalist David Frost, in a series of historic interviews, is not bound by the same laws that apply to ordinary citizens. “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” he explained. Congress, which filed articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice in the Watergate affair, obviously disagreed. Yet 40 years later, Donald Trump’s legal team has revived Nixon’s reasoning. As special counsel Robert Mueller closes in on what appears to be an obstruction case against the president, Trump’s attorneys are publicly laying the groundwork to argue that he is immune to any charges that could precipitate impeachment.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/...estigation

Nixon refused to hand over the tapes. What is the Trump equivalent?

Who knows how this all plays out. I don't think firing Comey in and of itself reaches the level of obstruction of justice. However, coupled with the fact that he knew Flynn lied to the FBI before hand lends more credence to that theory.

The rumors however now are that his latest attacks on the FBI are laying the groundwork for firing Mueller.

I think if he does this, the republicans will cut him loose. Especially if they get tax reform through.

Isn’t mueller and his “team” investigating, even today?

If so, and I believe that to be correct, what justice could have possibly been obstructed?

When? By whom?

Lunatic left logic- going from no witch hunt “investigation” to a multi million dollar charade is obstruction.

Mmmmmkay.

(12-05-2017 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:36 PM)Oman Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  a. Collusion is not illegal
b. The president cannot obstruct justice



In May 1977, three years after he resigned the presidency, Richard Nixon made a stunning declaration. The president, he told British journalist David Frost, in a series of historic interviews, is not bound by the same laws that apply to ordinary citizens. “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” he explained. Congress, which filed articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice in the Watergate affair, obviously disagreed. Yet 40 years later, Donald Trump’s legal team has revived Nixon’s reasoning. As special counsel Robert Mueller closes in on what appears to be an obstruction case against the president, Trump’s attorneys are publicly laying the groundwork to argue that he is immune to any charges that could precipitate impeachment.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/...estigation

Nixon refused to hand over the tapes. What is the Trump equivalent?

Who knows how this all plays out. I don't think firing Comey in and of itself reaches the level of obstruction of justice. However, coupled with the fact that he knew Flynn lied to the FBI before hand lends more credence to that theory.

The rumors however now are that his latest attacks on the FBI are laying the groundwork for firing Mueller.

I think if he does this, the republicans will cut him loose. Especially if they get tax reform through.

No, the FBI is a section of the department of Justice, part of the executive branch. the POTUS has the right to fire any of the FBI he wishes, to start or stop any investigation he wishes for whatever reason he wishes. He cannot obstruct an investigation he has every right to cancel. This "obstruction" bullshat is just pandering playing to the far left and their hatred for Trump.

If the POTUS abuses this power, Congress can impeach him. that's it.

I think you are mistaken. I seriously doubt that Trump could stop this investigation. If he could, he would have done it when he fired Comey.

Then what’s being obstructed?!?

Too freaking funny, you guys.

(12-05-2017 12:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  a. Collusion is not illegal

When did the "Collusion" happen and what did it amount to?

IDK

I find it interesting that Trump's lawyers would concede the possibility that it actually happened by now saying it's not illegal.

Sigh......

I feel like I need to combine about 200 threads into one

1) Collusion ISN'T illegal. Collusion against the United States is. The left has gone from claiming that Trump colluded against the American People and the country... to claiming that he simply colluded against Hillary, detestably for the BENEFIT of the American people since the truth was exposed, IF it ever happened. This comment is in response to these deflections from the actual illegal event, to the stretches the left has gone to to imply ANY kind of impropriety.

2) Session's comment was made under Clinton, thus is arguably a completely apolitical comment. One can reasonably disagree with the opinion, but he clearly didn't make it in order to defend Trump. Nixon seems to have agreed. So Trump, Bill Clinton, Sessions and Nixon would have agreed. So what?

3) You admit that you don't know what the collusion could have been, despite more than a year of investigations....

AND
4) the comment doesn't concede anything. As I said, it merely addresses the left's increasingly broad generalizations that ANYTHING done in concert with a foreign government, even a meeting to talk about working together against ISIS done during the transition meets the definition of 'collusion with a foreign government'

I'd point out that iirc, much of the work accusing Trump was based on comments from a former intelligence officer for a foreign government. That meets the definition of collusion that many on the left are now applying

(12-05-2017 01:48 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:36 PM)Oman Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Nixon refused to hand over the tapes. What is the Trump equivalent?

Who knows how this all plays out. I don't think firing Comey in and of itself reaches the level of obstruction of justice. However, coupled with the fact that he knew Flynn lied to the FBI before hand lends more credence to that theory.

The rumors however now are that his latest attacks on the FBI are laying the groundwork for firing Mueller.

I think if he does this, the republicans will cut him loose. Especially if they get tax reform through.

No, the FBI is a section of the department of Justice, part of the executive branch. the POTUS has the right to fire any of the FBI he wishes, to start or stop any investigation he wishes for whatever reason he wishes. He cannot obstruct an investigation he has every right to cancel. This "obstruction" bullshat is just pandering playing to the far left and their hatred for Trump.

If the POTUS abuses this power, Congress can impeach him. that's it.

I think you are mistaken. I seriously doubt that Trump could stop this investigation. If he could, he would have done it when he fired Comey.

Then what’s being obstructed?!?

Too freaking funny, you guys.

Once again. Firing Comey by itself isn't enough IMHO to be obstruction of justice. However, if you can prove that Trump fired him because he wouldn't stop the investigation, then you have more evidence against him. You would still require more than that though. It's not about any one thing. It would take several bits of evidence together to prove obstruction of justice.

so you're saying you got nothing?

(12-05-2017 01:59 PM)solohawks Wrote:  so you're saying you got nothing?

I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

The difficulty is in proving with evidence that it actually occurred. So just because you only have one or two or three bits of evidence doesn't mean you have nothing.

They are building a case against him.

These things take time.

(12-05-2017 12:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  a. Collusion is not illegal
b. The president cannot obstruct justice



In May 1977, three years after he resigned the presidency, Richard Nixon made a stunning declaration. The president, he told British journalist David Frost, in a series of historic interviews, is not bound by the same laws that apply to ordinary citizens. “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” he explained. Congress, which filed articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice in the Watergate affair, obviously disagreed. Yet 40 years later, Donald Trump’s legal team has revived Nixon’s reasoning. As special counsel Robert Mueller closes in on what appears to be an obstruction case against the president, Trump’s attorneys are publicly laying the groundwork to argue that he is immune to any charges that could precipitate impeachment.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/...estigation

Nixon refused to hand over the tapes. What is the Trump equivalent?

Who knows how this all plays out. I don't think firing Comey in and of itself reaches the level of obstruction of justice.

It doesn't. Other Presidents, Lincoln for example, have done similar. Heck, I think even one of the Bushes did similar. No talk of obstruction of justice then. Wonder why now?

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

So do we generally start investigating people before we have a clue of what they may have done wrong?

Quote:I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

No, that's not obvious.... Could it not be that Trump was the more likely candidate to drop them anyway and so the Russians threw trolling efforts out to help him win? Like every government on the planet has been known to do.

Quote:These things take time.

So do witch hunts.

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:59 PM)solohawks Wrote:  so you're saying you got nothing?

I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

The difficulty is in proving with evidence that it actually occurred. So just because you only have one or two or three bits of evidence doesn't mean you have nothing.

They are building a case against him.

These things take time.

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:59 PM)solohawks Wrote:  so you're saying you got nothing?

I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

The difficulty is in proving with evidence that it actually occurred. So just because you only have one or two or three bits of evidence doesn't mean you have nothing.

They are building a case against him.

These things take time.

how is it obvious? I don't think its obvious. I have seen ZERO evidence of this, just mindless conspiracy theories

(12-05-2017 02:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

So do we generally start investigating people before we have a clue of what they may have done wrong?

Quote:I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

No, that's not obvious.... Could it not be that Trump was the more likely candidate to drop them anyway and so the Russians threw trolling efforts out to help him win? Like every government on the planet has been known to do.

Quote:These things take time.

So do witch hunts.

Witch hunts do not take time. Open a history book for Christ's sake.

Witch hunts were about falsely accusing some random person through spectral evidence. and burning them at the stake.

(12-05-2017 02:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

So do we generally start investigating people before we have a clue of what they may have done wrong?

Quote:I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

No, that's not obvious.... Could it not be that Trump was the more likely candidate to drop them anyway and so the Russians threw trolling efforts out to help him win? Like every government on the planet has been known to do.

Quote:These things take time.

So do witch hunts.

Witch hunts do not take time. Open a history book for Christ's sake.

Witch hunts were about falsely accusing some random person through spectral evidence. and burning them at the stake.

sounds like what is happening now, figuratively of course

(12-05-2017 02:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

So do we generally start investigating people before we have a clue of what they may have done wrong?

Quote:I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

No, that's not obvious.... Could it not be that Trump was the more likely candidate to drop them anyway and so the Russians threw trolling efforts out to help him win? Like every government on the planet has been known to do.

Quote:These things take time.

So do witch hunts.

Witch hunts do not take time. Open a history book for Christ's sake.

Witch hunts were about falsely accusing some random person through spectral evidence. and burning them at the stake.

sounds like what is happening now, figuratively of course

Actually, it's the opposite. The investigation is taking time which suggests lesss and less that it's a witch hunt and more and more like all the right steps are being taken.

Which is why it's so interesting that his supporters actually want it to be over quickly.

(12-05-2017 02:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

So do we generally start investigating people before we have a clue of what they may have done wrong?

Quote:I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

No, that's not obvious.... Could it not be that Trump was the more likely candidate to drop them anyway and so the Russians threw trolling efforts out to help him win? Like every government on the planet has been known to do.

Quote:These things take time.

So do witch hunts.

Witch hunts do not take time. Open a history book for Christ's sake.

Witch hunts were about falsely accusing some random person through spectral evidence. and burning them at the stake.

So they did not know what metaphors were in the first half of american history did they?

BTW Fit, the writer of that article is 100% anti Trump. I looked at her articles on that website, all of them are anti Trump.

(12-05-2017 02:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

So do we generally start investigating people before we have a clue of what they may have done wrong?

Quote:I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

No, that's not obvious.... Could it not be that Trump was the more likely candidate to drop them anyway and so the Russians threw trolling efforts out to help him win? Like every government on the planet has been known to do.

Quote:These things take time.

So do witch hunts.

Witch hunts do not take time. Open a history book for Christ's sake.

Witch hunts were about falsely accusing some random person through spectral evidence. and burning them at the stake.

So they did not know what metaphors were in the first half of american history did they?

What on earth are you talking about?

(12-05-2017 02:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 02:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm not sure you understand how investigations work.

When someone is being investigated, it doesn't matter what you know it only matters what you can prove.

So do we generally start investigating people before we have a clue of what they may have done wrong?

Quote:I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Russians offered to help Trump beat Hillary and that in exchange for that help, Trump instructed Flynn to tell them we would drop the Obama sanctions.

No, that's not obvious.... Could it not be that Trump was the more likely candidate to drop them anyway and so the Russians threw trolling efforts out to help him win? Like every government on the planet has been known to do.

Quote:These things take time.

So do witch hunts.

Witch hunts do not take time. Open a history book for Christ's sake.

Witch hunts were about falsely accusing some random person through spectral evidence. and burning them at the stake.

sounds like what is happening now, figuratively of course

Actually, it's the opposite. The investigation is taking time which suggests lesss and less that it's a witch hunt and more and more like all the right steps are being taken.

Which is why it's so interesting that his supporters actually want it to be over quickly.

by taking time do you mean expanding outside the scope of the mission/