- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Conservative Think Tank: Trump ‘Obstructed Justice’ When He Fired Comey
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:39 am to tigerinDC09
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:39 am to tigerinDC09
"Firing the former FBI director was well within within Trump’s legal authority as the nation’s ultimate decider in the executive branch, but IF Comey was fired for the purposes of hindering the probe into allegations of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, then Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, the authors claim."
I'm pretty sure everyone already knew that it was obstruction of justice if Trump's motive was to shut down the investigation. Not exactly groundbreaking stuff here. Proving his motive is going to be difficult though since Trump could easily claim that Comey was fired due to gross incompetence as he demonstrated many times in dealing with Hillary.
I'm pretty sure everyone already knew that it was obstruction of justice if Trump's motive was to shut down the investigation. Not exactly groundbreaking stuff here. Proving his motive is going to be difficult though since Trump could easily claim that Comey was fired due to gross incompetence as he demonstrated many times in dealing with Hillary.
1
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:39 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
towards brookings
We get it. Yoy lean toward anything anti Trump.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:40 am to BBONDS25
quote:
I noticed they didn't cite the well-established precedent that FBI investigations are not considered "proceedings" under the Obstruction Code they claim was violated.
Airtight you say?
Send me a link that describes how FBI investigations don't fall under the obstruction code, I will read.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:40 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Richard Nixon is laughing at you
that question was never answered moron. since nixon resigned
don't worry son it happened before you were born.
still think brookings is conservative?
This post was edited on 10/11/17 at 7:41 am
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:42 am to DaBama
quote:
Proving his motive is going to be difficult though since Trump could easily claim that Comey was fired due to gross incompetence as he demonstrated many times in dealing with Hillary.
Guys, this isn't hard. Trump literally told Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of "this whole Russia thing".
There is nothing to prove, he already told us!
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:44 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Guess what, their opinion is laid out with 118 pgs of relevant facts and precedent case law, so until I see your facts, I'm leaning towards brookings.
The president is not John Q. Public. I am sure their argument is solid for me or you, but not for the POTUS.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:45 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
118 pgs of relevant facts and precedent case law,
Yet they skipped over the most basic issue. Whether an FBI investigation is a proceeding under the law. There is legal precedent out there hat addresses this. Do you want to guess why it was cited. Their 118 pages of facts are no different than any memorandum in support an advocate would file in any case. Yet you think it is airtight? Know how I know you have zero legal background?
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:45 am to tedmarkuson
quote:
that question was never answered moron. since nixon resigned
don't worry son it happened before you were born.
still think brookings is conservative?
Yeah, so the republicans who told Nixon they would remove him knew the answer to that question.
Regarding Brookings.... When you can't dispute the message, attack the messenger. That's fine, I see several are doing that on here, it's very transparent.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:46 am to tigerinDC09
Arrest him. Use Lesters tape.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:46 am to AUstar
quote:By pardoning someone in the interest of shielding himself from prosecution. The accusation has been leveled before, notably during the Iran-Contra scandal. The fact that no president has been charged with obstruction in the use of his pardons doesn't mean that obstruction didn't occur.
Do you deny that the president has the power of the pardon? If you agree he has this power, then how can such a person obstruct justice?
quote:See above.
So either the president does NOT have the power of the pardon or he does and cannot obstruct justice.
quote:I believe he was accused of pardoning Rich in exchange for earlier financial donations and favors. Still crooked as frick, but not obstruction (it didn't shield him from any ongoing investigation) and not illegal--though it should be.
Did Bill Clinton "obstruct justice" when he pardoned international fugitive Mark Rich?
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:47 am to AUstar
quote:
The president is not John Q. Public. I am sure their argument is solid for me or you, but not for the POTUS.
The report spells out the options for Mueller.
1.Send Impeachment recommendation to congress
2.Indict
3.Wait till he leaves office then indict
4. Do nothing
This post was edited on 10/11/17 at 7:48 am
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:47 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Yeah, so the republicans who told Nixon they would remove him knew the answer to that question.
Impeachment is not criminal prosecution. Constitutional law 101, bro.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:48 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Guess what, their opinion is laid out with 118 pgs of relevant facts
Not facts. Opinions.
quote:
precedent case law,
Their opinion that the case law applies.
quote:
I'm leaning towards brookings.
Well of course you do. You desperately want it to be true because you're a proggy.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:48 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Send me a link that describes how FBI investigations don't fall under the obstruction code, I will read.
You have Westlaw access? It's a pretty quick search if you do. I will see if I can get to it in a couple of minutes.
When I do post it, I expect an apology to the board to the President and a strong rebuke of this "airtight" white paper. That's fair, right?
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:48 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
After reading this, I'm convinced that Trump would be indicted if he weren't currently POTUS.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:49 am to tigerinDC09
quote:Ban bet??
I think Mueller might just try to test the question of indicting a sitting president.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:49 am to AUstar
quote:
Impeachment is not criminal prosecution. Constitutional law 101, bro.
Um, yeah, that's the whole point of a whole section of the report.
I just laid that out in my previous post.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:49 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Guys, this isn't hard. Trump literally told Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of "this whole Russia thing".
you're in DC go arrest him!
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:50 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
The case is airtight. This whitepaper lays out all of the currently known facts and precedent from case law.
After reading this, I'm convinced that Trump would be indicted if he weren't currently POTUS
Holy shite OP is dumb.
Posted on 10/11/17 at 7:52 am to tigerinDC09
Since when is the Brookings institute a conservative think tank?????
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News