Trump Presidency

[Coydog]

yes straw clutching EVERYONE asked said they were NEVER pressured to do anything to interfere w the investigation uh huh, pressured, but both refused to answer when directly questioned if Gump asked them to intervene in the FBI investigation, comey merely declined to make a ruling he isn't qualified to make, something he seemed to have no problem making for clinton...time for an investigation into just how much collusion between clinton, comey lynch and the obama administration took place and if it amounts to election tampering...yeah and what really happened in Benghazi and where was Obama actually born - Covfefe! what the hell were you watching? MSLSD? I'm sure the FISA investigation will continue...

[Coydog]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... ony-239295

Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"

"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"

Comey: "Correct."

Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"

Comey: "Correct."

Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."

Comey: "Not in his words, no."

Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."

Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."

Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"

Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."

Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"

Comey: "I don't as I sit here."

good enough for any court...

Um, you seem to have skipped this part:

Comey: "I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it."

And this:

Harris: "I just want to make a statement that in my experience of prosecuting cases when a robber held a gun to somebody's head and said I hope you will give me your wallet, the word hope was not the operative word at that moment."

[freeski]

I can't believe you quoted that Harris chick to make your point. You really are lost. Who's next Waters? There are many snowflakes in congree who do nothing. There needs to be more gerrymandering to keep these people out.

[madhatter]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... ony-239295

Risch: "Boy you nailed this down on page 5 paragraph 3, you put this in quotes, words matter, you wrote down the words so we could all have the words in front of us now. There are 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, 'I hope', this is the President speaking, 'I hope you can see your way claer to letting this go, to letting Flynn go...I hope you can let this go.'"

"Now those are his exact words, is that correct"

Comey: "Correct."

Risch: "And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes?"

Comey: "Correct."

Risch: "Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go."

Comey: "Not in his words, no."

Risch: "He did not order you to let it go."

Comey: "Again, those words are not an order."

Risch: "He said 'I hope'. Now, like me you probably did 100's of cases, maybe 1,000s of cases charging people with criminal offenses. And, of course, you have knowlege of the 1,000s of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?"

Comey: "I don't know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying 'his words' is I took it as a direction..."

Risch: "You may have taken it as a direction but that is not what he said. He said, 'I hope.' You don't know of anyone who has ever been charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?"

Comey: "I don't as I sit here."

good enough for any court...

Um, you seem to have skipped this part:addressed that too see HUGE above

Comey: "I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it."

And this:

Harris: "I just want to make a statement that in my experience of prosecuting cases when a robber held a gun to somebody's head and said I hope you will give me your wallet, the word hope was not the operative word at that moment."

all that's missing is a gun to someones head

[madhatter]

yes straw clutching EVERYONE asked said they were NEVER pressured to do anything to interfere w the investigation uh huh, pressured, but both refused to answer when directly questioned if Gump asked them to intervene in the FBI investigation, comey merely declined to make a ruling he isn't qualified to make, something he seemed to have no problem making for clinton...time for an investigation into just how much collusion between clinton, comey lynch and the obama administration took place and if it amounts to election tampering...yeah and what really happened in Benghazi and where was Obama actually born - Covfefe! what the hell were you watching? MSLSD? I'm sure the FISA investigation will continue...

you really need to brush up on law...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 36bbb55784" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the arguments for presidential obstruction here tend to omit the statute’s most important word: “corruptly.” Not every form of interfering with an investigation, or even the closing down of an investigation, is felony obstruction. Only corrupt ones. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused not only acted intentionally but also with an awareness that his actions violated the law.

So, what would be a legitimate interference with an investigation?

This brings us to executive discretion. Every day, in FBI and U.S. attorney’s offices throughout the nation, agents and prosecutors decide to close investigations and decline prosecutions. Many of these cases are viable, but these executive-branch officials judge that the equities weigh against continuing the investigation or filing an indictment. They consider the seriousness of the offense and balance that against personal factors related to the suspect — criminal history, contributions to society, whether alternatives to criminal prosecution would be more appropriate, whether a criminal charge would be overkill because of other consequences the suspect has suffered, etc.

This is important because the president is the chief executive. We like to think of law enforcement as insulated from politics, and we certainly aspire to a politics that does not undermine the rule of law. In our system, however, it is simply not the case that law enforcement is independent of political leadership. The FBI and Justice Department are not a separate branch of government. They are subordinate to the president. In fact, they do not exercise their own power; the Constitution vests all executive power in the president. Prosecutors and FBI agents are delegates.

That means that when they exercise prosecutorial discretion, they are exercising the president’s power. Obviously, the president cannot have less authority to exercise his power than his subordinates do.

In describing their Feb. 14 meeting, Comey understandably inferred, from Trump’s request that others leave the room, the president’s possible awareness that he was about to do something inappropriate. But this suspicion must be balanced against what Trump actually did, which was merely to plead on Flynn’s behalf, not order an outcome.

Comey recalled the president opining that Flynn had not done anything terribly wrong. And it is true that Flynn’s communications with Kislyak were consistent with his role in the Trump transition, and that reportedly he did not make any commitment to undo sanctions imposed by President Barack Obama. According to Comey, Trump added that Flynn was “a good guy.” This is also true: Flynn is a combat veteran who served his country with bravery and distinction. The president added that Flynn had “been through a lot.” True again: He’d been fired in humiliating fashion, and his financial prospects were obviously dimmed by indications that he had been incompetent, if not deceitful.

In other words, assuming Comey’s version of the conversation is correct (Trump has disputed it), Trump was doing what prosecutors and agents do: He weighed the equities and opined that further investigation and potential indictment were not warranted. Enough was enough.

Comey, we must note, took pains to say that Trump did not ask him to halt the broader investigation of Russian meddling in the election. Indeed, he said the president observed in a March 30 phone call that it would be a benefit if potential wrongdoing by any of his “satellite” associates were uncovered. This strongly suggests that he was not lobbying for Flynn out of fear that the investigation would uncover misconduct by Trump and his circle.

One can certainly disagree with Trump’s marshaling of the equities involved in proceeding against Flynn. But to weigh them and recommend against proceeding was a legitimate exercise of executive discretion. The president has every bit as much authority to engage in that exercise as his subordinates. And it bears repeating that he did not order a halt to the investigation — though he could have.

This was clearly not corruption. And without corruption, there cannot be obstruction.

This is not to suggest the president’s executive discretion is absolute. A president who abuses his power in a manner that undermines our system of justice can and should be impeached. Indeed, the Nixon articles of impeachment alleged obstruction of law-enforcement investigations. Trump, by contrast, has not obstructed the administration of law, much less done so systematically.

if the WaPo can present a compelling argument rest assured there's ZERO chance of trump being charged and convicted of obstruction...just pure leftwing fantasy...until ya'all get beyond the hysterics and butthurt of losing and start crafting a message that resonates outside the loonasphere, you can expect more losses at the polls and the ability to do nothing at the congressional level except obstruct and impede...far preferable to the ramming thru of the progressive agenda....a definite win for trump voters looking to stop the progressive obama agenda...anything else is icing on the cake...

COVFEFE!!!

[deadheadskier]

...

[madhatter]

...

probably the one who admitted to falsifying his testimony to congress under direct order of the sitting AG in order to further a presidential nominees narrative...

but hey if stupid leftwing memes meant anything hillary would president...



ya'all can stop crying in solidarity with her any time now











sorry just savoring the glorious day...

but hey we may have some insight as to who humpty is....

[deadheadskier]

Unwavering support for the biggest lying sack of sh*t, petulant child and con man ever to assume office.

What a horrible look for your intellect and character hatter. I bet you'd support Bernie Madoff for office if he was right wing

and right on queue.....hillary, hillary, hillary

broken record with you Trumptards

Get some new material

[Coydog]

if the WaPo can present a compelling argument rest assured there's ZERO chance of trump being charged and convicted of obstruction...just pure leftwing fantasy...until ya'all get beyond the hysterics and butthurt of losing and start crafting a message that resonates outside the loonasphere, you can expect more losses at the polls and the ability to do nothing at the congressional level except obstruct and impede...far preferable to the ramming thru of the progressive agenda....a definite win for trump voters looking to stop the progressive obama agenda...anything else is icing on the cake...

COVFEFE!!!

You cite a contributor to the National Review and his silly right wingnut argument boils down to "I think there was no corruption because, um, ah, Covfefe!"

And nobody really cares if Gump is charged and convicted just as long as he goes back to his tower and stays there.

[Coydog]

I can't believe you quoted that Harris chick to make your point. You really are lost. Who's next Waters? There are many snowflakes in congree who do nothing. There needs to be more gerrymandering to keep these people out.

In one deft statement, Harris completely blew apart Risch's absurd contention that when the president tells everyone to leave the room, including your boss and speaks with you one on one to say he "hopes" you do something, he was only expressing a general wish and not issuing a directive.

[XtremeJibber2001]

This is just getting too delicious. Trump just can't help himself. Will testify under oath, but won't confirm or deny tapes. Hmm. Trump is too sloppy and impulsive to escape this unscathed, IMHO.

Trump: I'm willing to testify under oath about Comey claims
By Dan Merica and Kevin Liptak, CNN
Updated 3:29 PM ET, Fri June 9, 2017

Washington (CNN)A defiant President Donald Trump said Friday he was willing to testify under oath about his conversations with fired FBI Director James Comey.

"One hundred percent," Trump said when asked about his willingness to deliver sworn testimony.

He adamantly denied Comey's claims that he asked him to end the FBI's investigation into national security adviser Michael Flynn.

"I didn't say that," Trump said.

And he denied that he asked Comey for his loyalty, though he added: "There would be nothing wrong if I did say it."

Trump also twice declined to confirm the existence of White House recordings of the conversations.

"I'll tell you about that sometime in the very near future," Trump said.

Asked again, Trump said: "I'm not hinting anything. I will tell you over a very short period of time."

He also offered a blunt assessment Friday of Comey's testimony before the Senate intelligence panel.

"No collusion, no obstruction, he's a leaker," Trump said during a Rose Garden news conference.

He said his team emerged "very happy" after Comey's testimony.

Trump officially took questions from reporters for the first time in three weeks, standing next to Romanian President Klaus Iohannis.

The brief news conference -- where each President took two questions from the press -- comes the day after James Comey's bombshell Capitol Hill testimony in which the fired FBI director accused the White House of "lies."

Trump was publicly silent while Comey testified on Thursday, but tweeted Friday an accusation that Comey -- whom Trump fired in May -- lied under oath.

"Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication," Trump tweeted, "and WOW, Comey is a leaker!"

Trump's comment tracks with Republican talking points about the hearing, where the Republican National Committee and White House urged surrogates to emphasize the fact that Comey clearly said the President was never an explicit subject of the Russia probe during his time at the FBI.

But Comey's testimony about the President has darkened clouds hanging over the White House.

The former FBI director said Trump's private comments urging him to drop the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn led him to tell his Justice Department colleagues they needed to be careful. And he said multiple times that he choose to take detailed notes about his interactions with Trump because he worried the White House and President would lie about them if he didn't.

Trump has remained relatively media shy since the Justice Department tapped former FBI Director Robert Mueller to be the special counsel looking into Russia's meddling into the 2016 election and the Trump campaign's possible ties to it.
The President last formally took questions on May 18, when he held a bilateral news conference -- similar to the one that will happen Friday -- with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos.

[Coydog]

[freeski]

Madhatter, some people can't stop crying.

Covfefe

[Coydog]

This is just getting too delicious. Trump just can't help himself. Will testify under oath, but won't confirm or deny tapes. Hmm. Trump is too sloppy and impulsive to escape this unscathed, IMHO.

I believe his testimony is scheduled sometime between when the wall is completed and when he releases his tax returns.

[brownman]

Dumbo figures adding perjury in still ain't impeachable.
Even if polygram was in play, he's too dense to chart as a lying cheating imbecile scumbag.

Classmate Senator Warner and Senator Burr are classic Statesmen.