Donald Trump Under Active Investigation for Obstruction of Justice

[time4fun]

Washington Post is reporting (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?utm_term=.873f3c6f5462) tonight that Trump is now officially under investigation for obstruction of justice after firing FBI Director James Comey:



The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.


A day or two after the March 22 meeting, Trump telephoned Coats and Rogers to separately ask them to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the president’s requests, officials said.

It is unclear whether Ledgett had direct contact with Trump or other top officials about the Russia probe, but he wrote an internal NSA memo documenting the president’s phone call with Rogers, according to officials.

[Tgo01]

lol

[ClydeR]

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/trump_self-pardon_zpskabmiran.png
https://twitter.com/fordm/status/875129751387721729 (https://twitter.com/fordm/status/875129751387721729)

[time4fun]

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/trump_self-pardon_zpskabmiran.png
https://twitter.com/fordm/status/875129751387721729 (https://twitter.com/fordm/status/875129751387721729)

That's actually not true.

Remember that Impeachment is a political process, not a juridical one.

If the argument is he could pardon himself pre-emptively before leaving office to prevent criminal prosecution...I don't believe that's ever been done, and it's VERY unlikely that it would be upheld.

Regardless, he would either have to leave office or risk impeachment. Presidential pardoning doesn't affect the latter.

[Gelston]

That's actually not true.

He sure as fuck can. Congress could still Impeach him though, and he couldn't pardon himself for anything after that Conviction.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[Androidpk]

^

[Tgo01]

Remember that Impeachment is a political process, not a juridical one.

It's clearly talking about a criminal offense, not impeachment. Yes, the president has no control over an impeachment. I swear it's like explaining shit to a three year old with you.

[time4fun]

Also- adding that accepting a Presidential pardon is an admission of guilt. It could backfire spectacularly if the pardon itself was overturned by SCOTUS.

[Gelston]

Also- adding that accepting a Presidential pardon is an admission of guilt. It could backfire spectacularly if the pardon itself was overturned by SCOTUS.

Pardons aren't reviewed by SCOTUS. They can't overturn them, aslong as the meet the two criteria set out by the Constitution, offenses against the US (Federal) and not Impeachment.

It is a power specifically granted the executive branch and not subject to judicial review or legislative revocation by Congress.

[Parkbandit]

Also- adding that accepting a Presidential pardon is an admission of guilt. It could backfire spectacularly if the pardon itself was overturned by SCOTUS.

Jesus. How do you turn the computer on?

You have to be trolling at this point.. no one could possibly be this retarded.

[Tgo01]

It could backfire spectacularly if the pardon itself was overturned by SCOTUS.

Have you EVER heard of a pardon being overturned by SCOTUS? Are you really this fucking stupid?

Maybe your LNet boyfriend will come to your rescue this time around and say everyone admitted you were the smartest person on the PC.

[drauz]

Jesus. How do you turn the computer on?

You have to be trolling at this point.. no one could possibly be this retarded.

I do it like everyone else.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2uHBhKTSe0

[Fortybox]

Have you EVER heard of a pardon being overturned by SCOTUS? Are you really this fucking stupid?

Maybe your LNet boyfriend will come to your rescue this time around and say everyone admitted you were the smartest person on the PC.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/HFp9qFYfbOpZm/giphy.gif

[hello]

President is within his constitutional powers to pardon himself; Nixon was debating doing this before shifting it to Ford. Trump knows he's free and clear of any prosecution or even jail time technically by the letter of the law.

But... Prez Pardons only apply to federal crimes. If say Maryland or DC were to sue him for illegal/conflict-of-interest due to his relationship with his businesses, pardoning himself (admission of guilt) will lead to an almost certain victory in the lawsuit. Further, criminal charges can be brought to bear state by state based upon his actions prior to taking office or dealings with his properties.

[time4fun]

Pardons aren't reviewed by SCOTUS. They can't overturn them, aslong as the meet the two criteria set out by the Constitution, offenses against the US (Federal) and not Impeachment.

It is a power specifically granted the executive branch and not subject to judicial review or legislative revocation by Congress.

Erm, SCOTUS has ruled on the Presidential Pardon ability several times. They have every ability to intervene in a Pardon to determine the constitutional issues underlying the ability. (So they can make determinations on how it's used, even though they have no say when it's used properly)

And a pardon is expressly prohibited in cases of impeachment. If a sitting President uses the Pardon pre-preemptively to avoid impeachment, you can bet that it would end up before SCOTUS.

[hello]

Erm, SCOTUS has ruled on the Presidential Pardon ability several times. They have every ability to intervene in a Pardon to determine the constitutional issues underlying the ability. (So they can make determinations on how it's used, even though they have no say when it's used properly)

And a pardon is expressly prohibited in cases of impeachment. If a sitting President uses the Pardon pre-preemptively to avoid impeachment, you can bet that it would end up before SCOTUS.

Impeachments are political, you can impeach a President for jaywalking or technically fail to impeach a President for murder if he's extremely popular for some reason. But, if he's going to use pardon power to resolve him of any guilt then the Republicans will all vote to impeach to salvage what's going to remain of the party after the apocalyptic political fallout.

[drauz]

Erm, SCOTUS has ruled on the Presidential Pardon ability several times. They have every ability to intervene in a Pardon to determine the constitutional issues underlying the ability. (So they can make determinations on how it's used, even though they have no say when it's used properly)

And a pardon is expressly prohibited in cases of impeachment. If a sitting President uses the Pardon pre-preemptively to avoid impeachment, you can bet that it would end up before SCOTUS.

No one here is saying for impeachment. In fact that was said a few times now.

[Gelston]

Erm, SCOTUS has ruled on the Presidential Pardon ability several times. They have every ability to intervene in a Pardon to determine the constitutional issues underlying the ability. (So they can make determinations on how it's used, even though they have no say when it's used properly)

And a pardon is expressly prohibited in cases of impeachment. If a sitting President uses the Pardon pre-preemptively to avoid impeachment, you can bet that it would end up before SCOTUS.

So basically, you are agreeing with exactly what I said, just trying to sound like you aren't.

[time4fun]

He sure as fuck can. Congress could still Impeach him though, and he couldn't pardon himself for anything after that Conviction.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

You're talking about a preemptive pardon to avoid Impeachment. The Courts are very clear that a law cannot be interpreted in a way that runs counter to its purpose.

To rule that a preemptive pardon of a sitting President BY a sitting President is constitutional would be to interpret the statute in a way that runs counter to its purpose. Remember- accepting a pardon is a legal admission of guilt. So it would be Trump admitting to an impeachable offense in order to avoid impeachment. That's not going to pass muster.

[Gelston]

You're talking about a preemptive pardon to avoid Impeachment. The Courts are very clear that a law cannot be interpreted in a way that runs counter to its purpose.

To rule that a preemptive pardon of a sitting President BY a sitting President is constitutional would be to interpret the statute in a way that runs counter to its purpose. Remember- accepting a pardon is a legal admission of guilt. So it would be Trump admitting to an impeachable offense in order to avoid impeachment. That's not going to pass muster.

Him being pardoned would have no bearing on him being Impeached. You yourself have said how many times that it is a political process?

[time4fun]

So basically, you are agreeing with exactly what I said, just trying to sound like you aren't.

Except that you used that line of reasoning a way to argue that a case couldn't go before SCOTUS, when the argument you and I are both making clearly indicates that it can.

[Gelston]

Except that you used that line of reasoning a way to argue that a case couldn't go before SCOTUS, when the argument you and I are both making clearly indicates that it can.

For it to go before SCOTUS someone would have to file. Who would file? Congress? No, they'd just Impeach him and Convict him for Conduct Unbecoming or something.

[hello]

You're talking about a preemptive pardon to avoid Impeachment. The Courts are very clear that a law cannot be interpreted in a way that runs counter to its purpose.

To rule that a preemptive pardon of a sitting President BY a sitting President is constitutional would be to interpret the statute in a way that runs counter to its purpose. Remember- accepting a pardon is a legal admission of guilt. So it would be Trump admitting to an impeachable offense in order to avoid impeachment. That's not going to pass muster.

But you're not understanding, it's not the crime itself that get's him impeached it's Congress (crucially the Senate). Like I said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue, but if he's got a 90% approval rating (let's suppose even after the shooting) he's gold, noone can touch him.

[time4fun]

Him being pardoned would have no bearing on him being Impeached. You yourself have said how many times that it is a political process?

There are two ways to look at this:

Pardoning yourself for an impeachable offense (Obstruction of Justice, no less) would create a situation that would make a President immune to impeachment, and IF you believe that a sitting President can't be indicted, then the impact of the action would be null and void. The pardon wouldn't stop the investigation, nor would it prevent impeachment proceedings (which aren't juridical)

If you believe a sitting President CAN be indicted, then it would serve as a way to make a President immune to indictment, which would serve as a potential barrier against impeachment. That would be thrown out.

Either way- the original argument that Trump can pardon himself and stop the investigation or avoid consequences for his actions is incorrect.

[Fortybox]

Except that you used that line of reasoning a way to argue that a case couldn't go before SCOTUS, when the argument you and I are both making clearly indicates that it can.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/8AaMzwvxwK1fG/giphy.gif

[Whirlin]

if he's got a 90% approval rating

Fairly certain your approval rating is on par with Trump's.

[time4fun]

But you're not understanding, it's not the crime itself that get's him impeached it's Congress (crucially the Senate). Like I said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue, but if he's got a 90% approval rating (let's suppose even after the shooting) he's gold, noone can touch him.

So look at it this way-

The Constitutional pardon power is generally reserved for Judicial proceedings.

But the framers expressly added a phrase that said it can't be done to avoid impeachment. Impeachment isn't juridical (I've said that several times in several threads), BUT this impeachment disclaimer was intentionally included in the description of a power that is, at its heart, about judicial process.

There's no way to interpret that as anything other than- a President can't invoke a pardon in order to keep themselves out of trouble. Remember that the original argument was that he could pardon himself and make the investigation go away.

But that's not how the power works- regardless of how you try to spin it, if that makes sense.

I don't think the person who tweeted was being serious, but I took the OP as understanding they were.

[Tgo01]

Pardoning yourself for an impeachable offense (Obstruction of Justice, no less) would create a situation that would make a President immune to impeachment

Anything and everything can be an "impeachable" offense. What constitutes a serious crime warranting an impeachment is not defined, it is entirely up to the House to decide to impeach a president for pretty much anything they want.

We are referring to a criminal complaint. Trump, and any president, can pardon themselves (or anyone else for that matter) for any federal crime. This has zero to do with impeachments.

Pull your head out of your ass already.

[Gelston]

So look at it this way-

The Constitutional pardon power is generally reserved for Judicial proceedings.

But the framers expressly added a phrase that said it can't be done to avoid impeachment. Impeachment isn't juridical (I've said that several times in several threads), BUT this impeachment disclaimer was intentionally included in the description of a power that is, at its heart, about judicial process.

There's no way to interpret that as anything other than- a President can't invoke a pardon in order to keep themselves out of trouble. Remember that the original argument was that he could pardon himself and make the investigation go away.

But that's not how the power works- regardless of how you try to spin it, if that makes sense.

Sorry, where is he currently being Impeached? He DAMN SURE COULD Pardon himself currently. That would also look bad, and probably get Congress looking even more into his shit, which could lead to some actual trouble. He isn't going to pardon himself.

[Fortybox]

Anything and everything can be an "impeachable" offense. What constitutes a serious crime warranting an impeachment is not defined, it is entirely up to the House to decide to impeach a president for pretty much anything they want.

We are referring to a criminal complaint. Trump, and any president, can pardon themselves (or anyone else for that matter) for any federal crime. This has zero to do with impeachments.

Pull your head out of your ass already.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/BrY1sfrB5bNYs/giphy.gif

[Tgo01]

Remember that the original argument was that he could pardon himself and make the investigation go away.

But that's not how the power works- regardless of how you try to spin it, if that makes sense.

If he is being investigated for a crime (which I'm pretty sure that's what the special prosecutor is doing, right?) then he sure as fuck can make the investigations go away by pardoning himself.

The only thing he can't do is shut down an investigation being led by the House that is seeking to have him impeached. Why are you this dumb?

[hello]

So look at it this way-

The Constitutional pardon power is generally reserved for Judicial proceedings.

But the framers expressly added a phrase that said it can't be done to avoid impeachment. Impeachment isn't juridical (I've said that several times in several threads), BUT this impeachment disclaimer was intentionally included in the description of a power that is, at its heart, about judicial process.

There's no way to interpret that as anything other than- a President can't invoke a pardon in order to keep themselves out of trouble. Remember that the original argument was that he could pardon himself and make the investigation go away.

But that's not how the power works- regardless of how you try to spin it, if that makes sense.

I don't think the person who tweeted was being serious, but I took the OP as understanding they were.

Right I agreed with you on his pardon powers on impeachment. But Justice has a standing policy to not indict sitting Presidents and shifts the responsibility to Congress, if the Senate (controlled by Republicans) all vote not to impeach, it's done he's free and clear. It's really fucked up but...

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/8/29/17/anigif_enhanced-buzz-18498-1377810170-49.gif

[hello]

If he is being investigated for a crime (which I'm pretty sure that's what the special prosecutor is doing, right?) then he sure as fuck can make the investigations go away by pardoning himself.

The only thing he can't do is shut down an investigation being led by the House that is seeking to have him impeached. Why are you this dumb?

He won't do this; as the impeachment process will take into account his admission of guilt when he pardoned himself during the special investigation.

[Methais]

Also- adding that accepting a Presidential pardon is an admission of guilt. It could backfire spectacularly if the pardon itself was overturned by SCOTUS.

I'm not gonna go searching because you don't matter enough to do so over, but I bet there's a post somewhere with you saying the opposite when the idea of Obama pardoning Hillary was being tossed around last year on here.

[time4fun]

Right I agreed with you on his pardon powers on impeachment. But Justice has a standing policy to not indict sitting Presidents and shifts the responsibility to Congress, if the Senate (controlled by Republicans) all vote not to impeach, it's done he's free and clear. It's really fucked up but...

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/8/29/17/anigif_enhanced-buzz-18498-1377810170-49.gif

The President isn't bound by DoJ guidelines, unfortunately.

[time4fun]

If he is being investigated for a crime (which I'm pretty sure that's what the special prosecutor is doing, right?) then he sure as fuck can make the investigations go away by pardoning himself.

The only thing he can't do is shut down an investigation being led by the House that is seeking to have him impeached. Why are you this dumb?

Pardoning himself would be an admission of guilt- legally. That doesn't make anything go away when you're laboring under an investigation with no set scope.

Also, what exactly would he be pardoning himself for? I'm fuzzy on this specific piece, but my general understanding is that a pardon must be made for specific crimes. It's impossible to predict what potential criminal accusations might be made from the investigation- which is officially licensed to go after things that directly and indirectly arise from the original investigation's scope. So Trump would basically have to admit guilt in 1,000 different hypothetical things to cover enough to effectively end the investigation. (All of which would then become impeachment fodder, btw) Merely pardoning himself for obstruction wouldn't be enough to shut the overall investigation down either officially nor effectively. If that's his goal- there are FAR faster and FAR less dangerous ways to do it.


The thing here Tgo, is sometimes you have to analyze situations beyond just the next step in front of your face.

[Tgo01]

Pardoning himself would be an admission of guilt- legally. That doesn't make anything go away.

It makes the criminal investigation go away. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Did you somehow not get a degree in constitutional law?


Also, what exactly would he be pardoning himself for? I'm fuzzy on this specific piece, but my general understanding is that a pardon must be made for specific crimes.

If he's being investigated for obstruction of justice then he can pardon himself for obstruction of justice. You're not really this dumb, are you?


It's impossible to predict what potential criminal accusations might be made from the investigation- which is officially licensed to go after things that directly and indirectly arise from the original investigation's scope. So Trump would basically have to admit guilt in 1,000 different hypothetical things to cover enough to effectively end the investigation.

I was just explaining to you how the presidential pardon works, I didn't say it would be wise for Trump to do so. Stop playing this gotcha game bullshit.

Technically Trump could instruct the FBI to stop investigating him altogether and it wouldn't be an obstruction of justice because the president has that power, he runs the executive branch.


Merely pardoning himself for obstruction wouldn't be enough to shut the overall investigation down either officially nor effectively.

Yes it would. If they are investigating him for the charge of obstruction of justice, then Trump pardons himself of the charge of obstruction of justice, then BOOM! There is nothing more to investigate because there is no crime they can prosecute for. You're an idiot if you think Trump would have to "admit guilt" to 1000 different things because that's not how our justice system works, even though I'm sure you would love if it worked that way. We don't investigate someone and say "Hey, let's see what turns up and what we can charge this guy for after our investigation!" They say "Hey, we have reason to believe this person committed the crime of <insert crime here.> Let's investigate this to see if we can uncover evidence to back up our suspicion." Do you understand how it works now?


If that's his goal- there are FAR faster and FAR less dangerous ways to do it.

I agree, he could simply call up the FBI and tell them to stop the investigations. Just because I'm explaining to you how a presidential pardon works doesn't mean I think it's a good idea for Trump to pardon himself.


The thing here Tgo, is sometimes you have to analyze situations beyond just the next step in front of your face.

lol

[Tgo01]

Shit, the perfect example that YOU, time4fun, love to point to is Nixon. As soon as Ford was sworn in he pardoned Nixon and BAM! All of the investigations into Nixon stopped. Why? Because there was no longer a crime to prosecute him for and thus no reason to continue the investigations.

[time4fun]

Um Tgo- let's just be realistic here. I've been trying to play both sides of this issue since it's all hypothetical, but Mueller was in charge of the FBI for years, and the DoJ's position has long been that a sitting President can't be criminally indicted. So that's almost assuredly what his opinion is as well.

And if that's the case, he is not now- nor will he ever- be investigating Trump for the purposes of a criminal indictment. He's doing it for impeachment proceedings.

So Trump pardoning himself for criminal obstruction of justice (which- still- SCOTUS would would almost assuredly rule is unconstitutional) wouldn't have any sort of chilling effect on Mueller's investigation. On the contrary, it would just speed it up. Mueller could then forward on to Congress his final report on this one part of his investigation (remember- it's not JUST an investigation into obstruction)- that the person being investigated had admitted guilt to an impeachable offense.

So no matter how you spin this- you're wrong.

[Androidpk]

Um Tgo- let's just be realistic here. I've been trying to play both sides of this issue since it's all hypothetical, but Mueller was in charge of the FBI for years, and the DoJ's position has long been that a sitting President can't be criminally indicted. So that's almost assuredly what his opinion is as well.

And if that's the case, he is not now- nor will he ever- be investigating Trump for the purposes of a criminal indictment. He's doing it for impeachment proceedings.

So Trump pardoning himself for criminal obstruction of justice (which- still- SCOTUS would would almost assuredly rule is unconstitutional) wouldn't have any sort of chilling effect on Mueller's investigation. On the contrary, it would just speed it up. Mueller could then forward on to Congress his final report on this one part of his investigation (remember- it's not JUST an investigation into obstruction)- that the person being investigated had admitted guilt to an impeachable offense.

So no matter how you spin this- you're wrong.

If you're playing both sides then tell me what would happen if Trump doesn't try to do this AND Mueller says there was no obstruction.

[Tgo01]

And if that's the case, he is not now- nor will he ever- be investigating Trump for the purposes of a criminal indictment. He's doing it for impeachment proceedings.

The house decides to impeach someone. Has the house given any indication to impeach the president? Have they started an investigation or held votes to start the impeachment process?

You're an idiot if you think the special prosecutor has the power to charge Trump with impeachment.


So Trump pardoning himself for criminal obstruction of justice (which- still- SCOTUS would would almost assuredly rule is unconstitutional)

No, SCOTUS won't rule it unconstitutional because they do not have that power. Maybe you should have taken fewer courses in gender studies and more courses in, I don't know, anything else.


wouldn't have any sort of chilling effect on Mueller's investigation.

Again, Mueller isn't investigating Trump for impeachment. I don't understand how you think it works like this. Please explain your thought process.


Mueller could then forward on to Congress his final report- that the person being investigated had admitted guilt to an impeachable offense.

Mueller doesn't report to Congress.


So no matter how you spin this- you're wrong.

Funny.

[ClydeR]

Mueller doesn't report to Congress.

The DOJ is required to report to Congress when Mueller closes his investigation. The article quoted below says the report will be to Rosenstein, but I think Rosenstein will have to recuse himself before then.


7) Will Mueller issue a final report?

Yes, but it may not be made public. The regulations call for Mueller to prepare a report for Rosenstein on the reasons for decisions to prosecute or not prosecute. The rules also say the Justice Department must report to Congress on the grounds for closing the investigation.

Rosenstein can decide whether or not to make that report public, but it may be a moot point since official notifications to the Hill are often promptly leaked.

More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/18/donald-trump-special-prosecutor-questions-238536)

[ClydeR]

Is Trump referring to Mueller?






https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCXE89oVwAATI7w.jpg
https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/status/875322255625953280
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/875321478849363968

[ClydeR]

Newt Gingrich is commenting. He'll be all over the teevee today talking about the investigation.




http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/gingrich-mueller-tweets061517_zpsoxerwqxk.png

[jtyler]

>Technically Trump could instruct the FBI to stop investigating him altogether and it wouldn't be an obstruction of justice because the president has that power, he runs the executive branch.


This is true. I mean Mueller is one of Comey's homies, and Comey admitted to leaking to get a someone appointed to look into this. It would be hilarious if Trump just fired Mueller while putting on some 'deal with it' shades, knowing full well that it's totally legal.

Sure it'd look awful, but it'd be funny.

Keep in mind that people see the same facts completely differently. Some people see all these people worked up about Trump/Russia, and now this "obstruction of justice" that anything that looks to interfere with it is literally an act of tyranny. Others think that it's all made up and this shit just needs to end so that the president can get to work.

[Wrathbringer]

Others think that it's all made up and this shit just needs to end so that the president can get to work.

this

[time4fun]

>Technically Trump could instruct the FBI to stop investigating him altogether and it wouldn't be an obstruction of justice because the president has that power, he runs the executive branch.


This is true. I mean Mueller is one of Comey's homies, and Comey admitted to leaking to get a someone appointed to look into this. It would be hilarious if Trump just fired Mueller while putting on some 'deal with it' shades, knowing full well that it's totally legal.

Sure it'd look awful, but it'd be funny.

Keep in mind that people see the same facts completely differently. Some people see all these people worked up about Trump/Russia, and now this "obstruction of justice" that anything that looks to interfere with it is literally an act of tyranny. Others think that it's all made up and this shit just needs to end so that the president can get to work.

Is everyone here incredibly stoned? If the President can stop an investigation into them without it being obstruction, what the hell do you think Nixon was in trouble for?

[Back]

Keep in mind that people see the same facts completely differently. Some people see all these people worked up about Trump/Russia, and now this "obstruction of justice" that anything that looks to interfere with it is literally an act of tyranny. Others think that it's all made up and this shit just needs to end so that the president can get to work.


this

It's not preventing him from "getting to work" just like it's not preventing him from going to Mar-A-Lago. He's just inept, self-centered, ill-prepared, childlike, egotistical, and many more adjectives indicating that he is incompetent.

[time4fun]

The house decides to impeach someone. Has the house given any indication to impeach the president? Have they started an investigation or held votes to start the impeachment process?

You're an idiot if you think the special prosecutor has the power to charge Trump with impeachment.



No, SCOTUS won't rule it unconstitutional because they do not have that power. Maybe you should have taken fewer courses in gender studies and more courses in, I don't know, anything else.



Again, Mueller isn't investigating Trump for impeachment. I don't understand how you think it works like this. Please explain your thought process.



Mueller doesn't report to Congress.



Funny.

I don't think a single thing you just said was remotely factual. Seriously, do you bother researching anything you say?

[Neveragain]

Is everyone here incredibly stoned?

Only the bath salt smoking crackheads that continue to buy "The Russians did it!" line of tripe.

[time4fun]

Only the bath salt smoking crackheads that continue to buy "The Russians did it!" line of tripe.

Wait, are you serious?

Everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee, every US Intelligence Agency, the entire DoJ, Paul Ryan, the UK, the EU...EVERYONE except Trump, right wing media, and Putin, have clearly stated that the Russians interfered with our election (And Putin recently acknowledged the interference "may have been Russian" in origin). If you don't understand that it happened, then I've got a few bridges to sell you.

[Wrathbringer]

Wait, are you serious?

Everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee, every US Intelligence Agency, the entire DoJ...EVERYONE except Trump, right wing media, and Putin, have clearly stated that the Russians interfered with our election. If you don't understand that it happened, then I've got a few bridges to sell you.

lol you're retarded.

[Androidpk]

Wait, are you serious?

Everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee, every US Intelligence Agency, the entire DoJ, Paul Ryan, the UK, the EU...EVERYONE except Trump, right wing media, and Putin, have clearly stated that the Russians interfered with our election (And Putin recently acknowledged the interference "may have been Russian" in origin). If you don't understand that it happened, then I've got a few bridges to sell you.

Get your facts straight, for the love of god.

[Parkbandit]

Wait, are you serious?

Everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee, every US Intelligence Agency, the entire DoJ, Paul Ryan, the UK, the EU...EVERYONE except Trump, right wing media, and Putin, have clearly stated that the Russians interfered with our election (And Putin recently acknowledged the interference "may have been Russian" in origin). If you don't understand that it happened, then I've got a few bridges to sell you.

No they don't. They say they hacked into several systems in an attempt to interfere with our election.

There is a gigantic difference.

And there is STILL no proof of your claim that Trump colluded with Russia.

Remember one of your more retarded claims that Russia hacked the DNC and the RNC and they only released the DNC stuff.. therefore that's the proof Trump colluded?

I loved that fairy tale. Can you tell us another one!?

[Parkbandit]

Get your facts straight, for the love of god.

Those "facts" are straight from the Huffington Post.. so you know they can be trusted.

[Neveragain]

Wait, are you serious?

Everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee, every US Intelligence Agency, the entire DoJ, Paul Ryan, the UK, the EU...EVERYONE except Trump, right wing media, and Putin, have clearly stated that the Russians interfered with our election (And Putin recently acknowledged the interference "may have been Russian" in origin). If you don't understand that it happened, then I've got a few bridges to sell you.

As much as I dislike you I still care enough to beg you to stop smoking bath salts. That shit will make you eat people, for real.

[jtyler]

It's not preventing him from "getting to work" just like it's not preventing him from going to Mar-A-Lago. He's just inept, self-centered, ill-prepared, childlike, egotistical, and many more adjectives indicating that he is incompetent.

He may or may not be incompetent, but that's not the issue of this topic, which is this investigation.

> If the President can stop an investigation into them without it being obstruction, what the hell do you think Nixon was in trouble for?

It's kind of interesting, actually. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/872614225709080578

Note Mr. Dershowitz citing precedence for this exact kind of thing.

I honestly feel bad for people that dislike Mr. Trump wholeheartedly - they're being seriously mislead into false hope that this will be his undoing.

--

You have a point about Nixon, however, in Nixon's case, there was plenty of evidence, (such as people being arrested for breaking in!). Also, people did testify against Mr. Nixon. Mr. Comey testified about his 'feelings' and the like, but never stated that Mr. Trump obstructed.

Again, I don't blame anyone for thinking this is a big deal. Look how it's reported. (https://www.google.com/search?q=comey+testify+obstruction&oq=comey+testify+obstruction&aqs=chrome..69i57.9159j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=comey+testimony+obstruction)

[Parkbandit]

He may or may not be incompetent, but that's not the issue of this topic, which is this investigation.


I don't actually disagree with any of Backlash's descriptors...

But it's STILL 9832115321 times better than a President Hillary Clinton.

[Back]

Wait, are you serious?

Everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee, every US Intelligence Agency, the entire DoJ, Paul Ryan, the UK, the EU...EVERYONE except Trump, right wing media, and Putin, have clearly stated that the Russians interfered with our election (And Putin recently acknowledged the interference "may have been Russian" in origin). If you don't understand that it happened, then I've got a few bridges to sell you.

Imagine what would happen if it were proved that Putin helped hack social media, election officials, the DNC, and voting machine employees and companies, which all resulted in helping Trump actually win the election? That would crush many Trump supporter's narratives of reality.

[hello]

It's a democratic ploy, probing for something trying to get lucky and turn up some surprise clutch "evidence" that looks damning.

What the libtards don't get is Trump CAN be one of the most liberal socialist Presidents in modern times. He's a panderer because that's what a business guy is; a 'make people happy' type. He even called the healthcare bill 'mean' because he understands that his core base are a bunch of highschool dropouts siphoning gasoline from his neighbor's car so he can get to work at the local Walmart.

Work with Trump, 'massage' the relationship a bit, and I think you'll find Trump is really a fiscal liberal at heart.

[Back]

It's a democratic ploy, probing for something trying to get lucky and turn up some surprise clutch "evidence" that looks damning.

Except... you know, there is an actual investigation based on actual evidence at the highest levels of our government. Or are you saying the DNC email hack was fabricated by the democrats to fake an investigation?

[hello]

Except... you know, there is an actual investigation based on actual evidence at the highest levels of our government. Or are you saying the DNC email hack was fabricated by the democrats to fake an investigation?

https://media.tenor.co/images/d16da76ceff63785f674e7fda6356f65/tenor.gif

[Androidpk]

I think it's more likely Trump would give pardons to Flynn and anyone else in his inner/outer camp that may need one.

[time4fun]

He may or may not be incompetent, but that's not the issue of this topic, which is this investigation.

> If the President can stop an investigation into them without it being obstruction, what the hell do you think Nixon was in trouble for?

It's kind of interesting, actually. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/872614225709080578

Note Mr. Dershowitz citing precedence for this exact kind of thing.

I honestly feel bad for people that dislike Mr. Trump wholeheartedly - they're being seriously mislead into false hope that this will be his undoing.

--

You have a point about Nixon, however, in Nixon's case, there was plenty of evidence, (such as people being arrested for breaking in!). Also, people did testify against Mr. Nixon. Mr. Comey testified about his 'feelings' and the like, but never stated that Mr. Trump obstructed.

Again, I don't blame anyone for thinking this is a big deal. Look how it's reported. (https://www.google.com/search?q=comey+testify+obstruction&oq=comey+testify+obstruction&aqs=chrome..69i57.9159j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=comey+testimony+obstruction)

So Dershowitz's argument is a hypothetical argument on purely juridical grounds, and it's predicated on the fundamental belief that firing the sitting FBI Director (and even the Special Prosecutor investigating you) is within a sitting President's constitutional authority. But, frankly, the only argument that anyone can factually make is that it is within his statutory authority- SCOTUS never had a chance to rule on whether or not these specific actions are, in fact, always constitutional (we've been here before, remember?).

But to dismiss this all with a blanket statement that whatever Trump does is immune to oversight is factually incorrect and requires you to ignore half of the Constitution. SCOTUS has ruled again and again that the President's actions are generally- though not always- subject to judicial review, and SCOTUS has absolutely ruled in the past that at least some Presidential authorities are nullified if used to avoid investigation and oversight and/or to engage in criminal activities (See- Executive Privilege- United States v. Brewster for one of MANY examples of the Courts ruling that actions taken by the Executive are not automatically defensible) Dershowitz is making a legally reasonable- but not legally certain- assumption here.

More to the point- the last two sitting Presidents who faced impeachment proceedings had Articles of Impeachment drafted that began with Obstruction of Justice charges. Nixon resigned before the proceedings could continue (he knew he would lose), but the primary impeachment charge was obstruction. (Fun side note- Article 2 was about making publicly misleading statements to deceive the American people in regards to the investigation that he obstructed). And that's another scope shift that has creeped into the discussion. When Dershowitz says "it's not obstruction if it's within his constitutional authority", that's not correct if you're looking at this through the lens of impeachment. And, bluntly, if you're not looking at it through that lens- then you're missing the point of the entire conversation.

TL:DR Trump (probably) can't go to prison for obstruction, but that doesn't mean he can't engage in obstruction and face consequences for those actions.

[Wrathbringer]

So Dershowitz's argument is a hypothetical argument on purely juridical grounds, and it's predicated on the fundamental belief that firing the sitting FBI Director (and even the Special Prosecutor investigating you) is within a sitting President's constitutional authority. But, frankly, the only argument that anyone can factually make is that it is within his statutory authority- SCOTUS never had a chance to rule on whether or not these specific actions are, in fact, always constitutional (we've been here before, remember?).

But to dismiss this all with a blanket statement that whatever Trump does is immune to oversight is factually incorrect and requires you to ignore half of the Constitution. SCOTUS has ruled again and again that the President's actions are generally- though not always- subject to judicial review, and SCOTUS has absolutely ruled in the past that at least some Presidential authorities are nullified if used to avoid investigation and oversight and/or to engage in criminal activities (See- Executive Privilege- United States v. Brewster for one of MANY examples of the Courts ruling that actions taken by the Executive are not automatically defensible) Dershowitz is making a legally reasonable- but not legally certain- assumption here.

More to the point- the last two sitting Presidents who faced impeachment proceedings had Articles of Impeachment drafted that began with Obstruction of Justice charges. Nixon resigned before the proceedings could continue (he knew he would lose), but the primary impeachment charge was obstruction. (Fun side note- Article 2 was about making publicly misleading statements to deceive the American people in regards to the investigation that he obstructed). And that's another scope shift that has creeped into the discussion. When Dershowitz says "it's not obstruction if it's within his constitutional authority", that's not correct if you're looking at this through the lens of impeachment. And, bluntly, if you're not looking at it through that lens- then you're missing the point of the entire conversation.

TL:DR Trump (probably) can't go to prison for obstruction, but that doesn't mean he can't engage in obstruction and face consequences for those actions.

You're retarded.

[time4fun]

It's a democratic ploy, probing for something trying to get lucky and turn up some surprise clutch "evidence" that looks damning.

What the libtards don't get is Trump CAN be one of the most liberal socialist Presidents in modern times. He's a panderer because that's what a business guy is; a 'make people happy' type. He even called the healthcare bill 'mean' because he understands that his core base are a bunch of highschool dropouts siphoning gasoline from his neighbor's car so he can get to work at the local Walmart.

Work with Trump, 'massage' the relationship a bit, and I think you'll find Trump is really a fiscal liberal at heart.

Honestly, the 17 US Intelligence Agencies are not a series of liberal think tanks. You're being lied to by Trump and the right wing media right now, and the fact that their take is incredibly convenient to them should give you pause. Congressional Republicans aren't even questioning this. The evidence is clear, and you're rewarding people who are putting their political goals above country.

what should REALLY freak you out is that Trump received classified briefings as a candidate where he was informed that the Russians were clearly behind the interference, and he's been exposed to all of the evidence and the conclusions drawn since then. And he STILL got up in front of you and lied to you to get you to believe it was the Chinese, or Korea, or literally anyone but the Russians. And he spent his time attacking the Intelligence Agencies instead of warning the country about what had happened (and what was actively happening in several other European countries).

That's terrifying.

[Methais]

Is there anything that isn't "terrifying" to you? Stop being such an emotional drama queen and go on vacation again or something. I promise we'll make a conscious effort to notice your absence this time.

[hello]

We'll see ehat Mueller dredges up. He literally has Trump's destiny in his hands.

[jtyler]

And that's another scope shift that has creeped into the discussion. When Dershowitz says "it's not obstruction if it's within his constitutional authority", that's not correct if you're looking at this through the lens of impeachment. And, bluntly, if you're not looking at it through that lens- then you're missing the point of the entire conversation.

TL:DR Trump (probably) can't go to prison for obstruction, but that doesn't mean he can't engage in obstruction and face consequences for those actions.

Are you saying that this is theater designed to promote the idea of impeachment?

That's fair, I guess.

[Jhynnifer]

Newt Gingrich is commenting. He'll be all over the teevee today talking about the investigation.




http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/gingrich-mueller-tweets061517_zpsoxerwqxk.png

Newt needs to learn to proofread his tweets.

[time4fun]

Are you saying that this is theater designed to promote the idea of impeachment?

That's fair, I guess.

No- it's saying that odds are a sitting President can't be criminally indicted, so the only likely end goal of an investigation of a sitting President is to determine whether or not offenses that Congress might find impeachable were carried out.

That's not theater- that's reality.

Trump fired the FBI Director overseeing investigations into his campaign and close friends after repeatedly pressuring the FBI Director (and reportedly a few other officials) into dropping at least one of those investigations. AND also after going on national television to say that he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he did it. it's not some grand conspiracy to go after Trump because he's Trump- it's doing exactly what we should do if ANY President were caught doing those things (and, indeed, have done).

AND the Special Prosecutor who is investigating him, by the way, was appointed by Trump's own Administration. Just as a reminder.

To NOT investigate this would be political. It would be giving a pass to Trump that, say, Nixon never got.

And if you argue otherwise, then you'd better be prepared to say that if Obama pressured Comey to drop the Clinton investigation and Rogers, et al to make it all go away, and then fired Comey when he didn't...and THEN went on national TV to tell everyone he was thinking about the Clinton investigation when he did it...that that wouldn't be an abuse of Presidential power. Only it would have to be even worse than that- there would have to be some possibility that the Clinton investigation would lead right up to Obama and get him in trouble.

So, if you would be 100% okay with that, then maybe you might have a little credibility. But you wouldn't be okay with that (nor should you be), and you don't.

[Wrathbringer]

No- it's saying that odds are a sitting President can't be criminally indicted, so the only likely end goal of an investigation of a sitting President is to determine whether or not offenses that Congress might find impeachable were carried out.

That's not theater- that's reality.

Trump fired the FBI Director overseeing investigations into his campaign and close friends after repeatedly pressuring the FBI Director (and reportedly a few other officials) into dropping at least one of those investigations. AND also after going on national television to say that he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he did it. it's not some grand conspiracy to go after Trump because he's Trump- it's doing exactly what we should do if ANY President were caught doing those things (and, indeed, have done).

AND the Special Prosecutor who is investigating him, by the way, was appointed by Trump's own Administration. Just as a reminder.

To NOT investigate this would be political. It would be giving a pass to Trump that, say, Nixon never got.

And if you argue otherwise, then you'd better be prepared to say that if Obama pressured Comey to drop the Clinton investigation and Rogers, et al to make it all go away, and then fired Comey when he didn't...and THEN went on national TV to tell everyone he was thinking about the Clinton investigation when he did it...that that wouldn't be an abuse of Presidential power. Only it would have to be even worse than that- there would have to be some possibility that the Clinton investigation would lead right up to Obama and get him in trouble.

So, if you would be 100% okay with that, then maybe you might have a little credibility. But you wouldn't be okay with that (nor should you be), and you don't.

you're retarded

[jtyler]

And if you argue otherwise, then you'd better be prepared to say that [insert a lot of stuff].

I try my best not to do strawman arguments and analogies, they're not really good things for honest discussion since you end up debating the strawman, and analogies are imperfect at best. I hope you understand.

I'm don't want to draw the thread into a discussion of Comey / Clinton / Obama / Lynch, because that is where the thread would go, because your strawman is hard to interpret.

[time4fun]

I try my best not to do strawman arguments and analogies, they're not really good things for honest discussion since you end up debating the strawman, and analogies are imperfect at best. I hope you understand.

I'm don't want to draw the thread into a discussion of Comey / Clinton / Obama / Lynch, because that is where the thread would go, because your strawman is hard to interpret.

How is the analogy imperfect? Sitting President, close friend, investigation into close friend, same actions taken by sitting President. The one imperfection here is that in my analogy, you don't have the added layer of Obama potentially getting into trouble personally depending on the outcome of the Clinton investigation.

It's all about abuse of Presidential power. Analogies help us get out of talking about specific people and to get into the abstract issues. There's a vested interest here in not living in a country where Presidents are above the law. I'ts not about 2016. Or 2017. Or even 2018. It's about the centuries we're hoping our nation survives through without devolving into a banana republic.

You know how many FBI Directors have been fired? One. And that was after the DoJ issued a damming report that found him guilty of numerous ethical lapses. And when I say ethical lapses- I mean he used FBI funds to build a $100k fence around his home and was refusing to comply with ethics requests for mortgage documents- which were strongly suspected of being part of a bribery scheme. Do you know why FBI Directors have a 10 year appointment? To help them maintain immunity to political pressure to, say, avoid conducting oversight into the President.

Nothing about what happened with Trump and Comey was normal. And, if WaPo's reporting is accurate, the decision to look into obstruction charges against Trump weren't based solely on that firing. There were allegedly other instances of Trump pressuring Rogers and Ledgett into getting Comey to back off of his investigations. And based on Trump's own public statements regarding the investigation and Comey's firing.

And all of that ignores the fact that the investigation that Trump wanted dropped was into Michael Flynn specifically. You know- his incredibly close and loyal friend who was the first person to run to Congress and offer to flip in exchange for immunity? That incredibly close and loyal friend is the one that has apparently inspired a depth of loyalty from Trump that we've never seen for someone who wasn't his family.

Do you really want to live in a country where these things can all be true, and we don't look into them to make sure they're not as suspicious as they look? If there was no obstruction, then there's nothing to worry about. Mueller will arrive at that conclusion. IF there was....what does it say about us that a lot of us jumped in and tried to prevent them from figuring that out?

[Wrathbringer]

How is the analogy imperfect? Sitting President, close friend, investigation into close friend, same actions taken by sitting President. The one imperfection here is that in my analogy, you don't have the added layer of Obama potentially getting into trouble personally depending on the outcome of the Clinton investigation.

It's all about abuse of Presidential power. Analogies help us get out of talking about specific people and to get into the abstract issues. There's a vested interest here in not living in a country where Presidents are above the law. I'ts not about 2016. Or 2017. Or even 2018. It's about the centuries we're hoping our nation survives through without devolving into a banana republic.

You know how many FBI Directors have been fired? One. And that was after the DoJ issued a damming report that found him guilty of numerous ethical lapses. And when I say ethical lapses- I mean he used FBI funds to build a $100k fence around his home and was refusing to comply with ethics requests for mortgage documents- which were strongly suspected of being part of a bribery scheme. Do you know why FBI Directors have a 10 year appointment? To help them maintain immunity to political pressure to, say, avoid conducting oversight into the President.

Nothing about what happened with Trump and Comey was normal. And, if WaPo's reporting is accurate, the decision to look into obstruction charges against Trump weren't based solely on that firing. There were allegedly other instances of Trump pressuring Rogers and Ledgett into getting Comey to back off of his investigations. And based on Trump's own public statements regarding the investigation and Comey's firing.

And all of that ignores the fact that the investigation that Trump wanted dropped was into Michael Flynn specifically. You know- his incredibly close and loyal friend who was the first person to run to Congress and offer to flip in exchange for immunity? That incredibly close and loyal friend is the one that has apparently inspired a depth of loyalty from Trump that we've never seen for someone who wasn't his family.

Do you really want to live in a country where these things can all be true, and we don't look into them to make sure they're not as suspicious as they look? If there was no obstruction, then there's nothing to worry about. Mueller will arrive at that conclusion. IF there was....what does it say about us that a lot of us jumped in and tried to prevent them from figuring that out?

stfu already you lost, get over it.

[Tgo01]

Is everyone here incredibly stoned? If the President can stop an investigation into them without it being obstruction, what the hell do you think Nixon was in trouble for?

Nixon was going to be impeached and most likely convicted. As I've already pointed out several times; the president can be impeached for pretty much any reason. They could move to impeach the president for littering.

[Tgo01]

I don't think a single thing you just said was remotely factual. Seriously, do you bother researching anything you say?

Talk about irony. Everything I just said is factual.

[ClydeR]

This may be Trump's oddest tweet yet about the Russia investigation..



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCcej_mUQAIUc_-.jpg


First, Trump confirms that he is under investigation.

Second, he appears to be complaining about Rosenstein. I don't understand that.



Then there was the odd statement issued by Rosenstein last night..


"Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous 'officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wrote Thursday.

"Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations," the statement continues. "The Department of Justice has a long-standing policy to neither confirm or deny such allegations."

More... (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/338084-justice-dept-issues-statement-warning-against-believing-anonymous)

Let's be honest. Rosenstein's statement sounds like something he reluctantly issued under pressure. It apparently wasn't good enough to avoid a Twitter rebuke.



To summarize, the chronology was that Rosenstein issued a clumsy warning about anonymous sources last night. And this morning Trump tweeted criticism of Rosenstein.

The President needs to understand that investigations last a long time. It would be smart to stop drawing attention to it.

[time4fun]

This may be Trump's oddest tweet yet about the Russia investigation..



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCcej_mUQAIUc_-.jpg


First, Trump confirms that he is under investigation.

Second, he appears to be complaining about Rosenstein. I don't understand that.



Then there was the odd statement issued by Rosenstein last night..



Let's be honest. Rosenstein's statement sounds like something he reluctantly issued under pressure. It apparently wasn't good enough to avoid a Twitter rebuke.



To summarize, the chronology was that Rosenstein issued a clumsy warning about anonymous sources last night. And this morning Trump tweeted criticism of Rosenstein.

The President needs to understand that investigations last a long time. It would be smart to stop drawing attention to it.

It's also insane because Trump went on national television after firing Comey and said he was actually the person who decided to do it- that he had made the decision long before he asked Rosenstein and Sessions to write up a memo. Now he's pretending like the memo had anything to do with the firing.

And, for the love of all that is holy, how many times now has Trump asked people to say one thing on the official record and then turned around and completely contradicted them within 24 hours via twitter? I don't know if he asked Rosenstein to make the statement yesterday or not (though I agree with Clyde that it looks like he may have), but he's not going to have anyone left to speak for him soon.

Oh, and we're, what, 150 days in?

He maintains he's innocent of everything. If this is him acting innocent, I would hate to see him acting guilty.

[Candor]

It's also insane because Trump went on national television after firing Comey and said he was actually the person who decided to do it

I have never supported the concept that Trump was guilty of anything just because he fired Comey.

However you are right, he did say he was the person who made the decision - I watched him say it. What this latest statement means, I don't know.

I have confidence in Mueller and believe the truth will be revealed from his investigations eventually.

[time4fun]

I have never supported the concept that Trump was guilty of anything just because he fired Comey.

However you are right, he did say he was the person who made the decision - I watched him say it. What this latest statement means, I don't know.

I have confidence in Mueller and believe the truth will be revealed from his investigations eventually.

Trump has spent much of the last week doing character assassination work towards Mueller and now Rosenstein. I think it's pretty clear what he meant and why he's doing it.

[Fortybox]

Trump has spent much of the last week doing character assassination work towards Mueller and now Rosenstein. I think it's pretty clear what he meant and why he's doing it.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/qXHhyQpchxRXq/giphy.gif

[ClydeR]

These Trump tweets are important. The writing style of these tweets is different from Trump's usual style. I believe a lawyer wrote these tweets for Trump. Does it leave any loopholes? Yes, there's a loophole. It does not answer whether or not someone else, who may or may not have kept copies of recordings, recorded the conversation at Trump's request. Any other loopholes?




https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DC8LmiSUMAA0Gxz.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DC8LntDVwAAooJ8.jpg

[everan]

I have never supported the concept that Trump was guilty of anything just because he fired Comey.

However you are right, he did say he was the person who made the decision - I watched him say it. What this latest statement means, I don't know.


It sounds like someone told him to fire Comey, but that he made the decision independently of that advice. He just finds irony that people who were calling for Comey to be fired are howling about obstructionism when he is fired.

[RichardCranium]

Honestly, the 17 US Intelligence Agencies are not a series of liberal think tanks. You're being lied to by Trump and the right wing media right now, and the fact that their take is incredibly convenient to them should give you pause.

Ironic, considering your first statement is a lie fed to you by liberal media outlets.

[ClydeR]

Ironic, considering your first statement is a lie fed to you by liberal media outlets.


Ironic? Word spoiler Alanis Morissette might think so. It's best never to refer to irony in writing, unless you're absolutely certain that you know what you're talking about, because there's a good chance that what you think is ironic actually isn't.