Preet Bharara: 'Absolutely evidence' to begin an obstruction case against Trump

a reply to: gortex

POTUS has an unilateral right to direct and kill investigations. Sorry. The story ends there.

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: gortex

POTUS has an unilateral right to direct and kill investigations. Sorry. The story ends there.

As far as any criminal investigation goes you are correct.

The discussion is being muddied by people whining on about obstruction of justice because they want to plant the notion of a similarity between Watergate and Trump (of which there is none).

What CAN happen is that the President could be impeached, but that is different. This route is also highly unlikely. It requires 2/3 of the Senate. 19 of 52 Republican Senators would need to agree with all Democrats. That would require something really significant, not one conversation where the President says 'I hope you can let Flynn go'. Not only is that not a direction, he never mentioned it again to Comey over 7 subsequent conversations.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Regardless of opinions - Trump committed no crime - as per the law

That is just an opinion unless you have access to information we don't.

Innocent until proven guilty is not an "opinion"; it is one of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system

originally posted by: UKTruth
Dershowitz explains it well.
edition.cnn.com...

Trump has the constitutional right to start, stop ANY investigation thus even if he had directed Comey to stop the investigation he broke NO law. A criminal investigation of obstruction of justice is a non starter - under the law.

Perhaps Mr Bharara should go back to law school.... he might then find it easier to hold down a job.

Dershowitz is such a tool. He will back whoever kisses Israels butt and seeing how Trump allowed an Israeli plant into the White House there is currently no bigger butt kisser than Trump.

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: gortex

POTUS has an unilateral right to direct and kill investigations. Sorry. The story ends there.

Please direct me to the Article in the Constitution that gives him that right.

a reply to: UKTruth

19 of 52 Republican Senators would need to agree with all Democrats. That would require something really significant

The 2018 election is really significant. Democratic candidates will run negative ads linking sitting Republicans to Trump's failures and scandals. There is a very good chance that the GOP will lose both the House and Senate, at which point the Democrats won't impeach Trump, but rather allow him to flounder so they can exploit his unpopularity in 2020.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

19 of 52 Republican Senators would need to agree with all Democrats. That would require something really significant

The 2018 election is really significant. Democratic candidates will run negative ads linking sitting Republicans to Trump's failures and scandals. There is a very good chance that the GOP will lose both the House and Senate, at which point the Democrats won't impeach Trump, but rather allow him to flounder so they can exploit his unpopularity in 2020.

That is indeed the strategy and the entire purpose of manufactured scandals.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

19 of 52 Republican Senators would need to agree with all Democrats. That would require something really significant

The 2018 election is really significant. Democratic candidates will run negative ads linking sitting Republicans to Trump's failures and scandals. There is a very good chance that the GOP will lose both the House and Senate, at which point the Democrats won't impeach Trump, but rather allow him to flounder so they can exploit his unpopularity in 2020.

That is indeed the strategy and the entire purpose of manufactured scandals.

Unfortunately for Republicans, it is Trump himself who is manufacturing these scandals. No-one forced him to hint that he has secret recordings. No-one is forcing him to have the Secret Service pay his company to stay at his hotels. No one is forcing him to make bizarre tweets at 3AM.

a reply to: RisenMessiah

Don't believe ANYTHING you hear?

That's pretty extreme.
How do you take in information?
LOL.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RisenMessiah

Don't believe ANYTHING you hear?

That's pretty extreme.
How do you take in information?
LOL.

Not listening to a butt hurt former US Attorney that lost his cushy do nothing job would be a good start.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

19 of 52 Republican Senators would need to agree with all Democrats. That would require something really significant

The 2018 election is really significant. Democratic candidates will run negative ads linking sitting Republicans to Trump's failures and scandals. There is a very good chance that the GOP will lose both the House and Senate, at which point the Democrats won't impeach Trump, but rather allow him to flounder so they can exploit his unpopularity in 2020.

That is indeed the strategy and the entire purpose of manufactured scandals.

Unfortunately for Republicans, it is Trump himself who is manufacturing these scandals. No-one forced him to hint that he has secret recordings. No-one is forcing him to have the Secret Service pay his company to stay at his hotels. No one is forcing him to make bizarre tweets at 3AM.

You are right...no one is forcing him to do that.
Also nobody is forcing the deranged Leftists to cry about every one of them either, you guys just do it naturally.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Regardless of opinions - Trump committed no crime - as per the law

That is just an opinion unless you have access to information we don't.

Innocent until proven guilty is not an "opinion"

Where did I say it was ? , my reply was in response to an assertion that Trump had committed no crime which until the investigations publish their findings is an opinion not a fact.

originally posted by: RisenMessiah
a reply to: gortex

I'm sorry but I have doubts that this guy is telling the truth.

Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.

That's kind of my ongoing motto. s/f though

Unless of course it comes from Trump himself... in which case it is 100% accurate and 100% totally honest. Cause he said so. And he'd never ever lie.

a reply to: UKTruth

Lots of lawyers convey a very different opinion.
Bob Mueller seems to be quietly building a case that will take on the supreme court should trump decide to use executive power to shut down any investigations.
There's enough to keep his admin bogged down til the midterms.
And as you just saw in the UK public opinion can change on a dime.
I call it the trump effect.

In any event I doubt this dog and pony show was what decent Americans elected him for and they are going to show that at the polls.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: gortex

POTUS has an unilateral right to direct and kill investigations. Sorry. The story ends there.

Please direct me to the Article in the Constitution that gives him that right.

The President is the top person in the branch of govt responsible for enforcing the law.

He has the power to disband the entire FBI if he wanted to - an organisation that has no standing in the Constitution. It is just a vehicle of the Executive branch. Decisions on who to prosecute and who not to prosecute are entirely within the remit of the Executive branch, where the FBI sits - these decisions are made every day. To suggest that an FBI Director has the power to investigate or not, but the President does not, is like saying a junior manager has the power to make business decisions but the CEO does not.

Article II of the Constitution lays out Presidential powers.

Trump even has the power to "reprieve or pardon" any individual from prosecution for any reason he deems fit.

Here is a good article to explain more:
National Review

The option open, which the constitution makes possible, is impeachment for abuse of the power vested in the President under article II.

a reply to: UKTruth

No one is above the law. Especially that clown. Don't be so sure he can just wave his magic wand and make this go away. It's not quite as cut and dry as Dershowitz wants you to believe.
The man was OJ Simpson's defense lawyer so we know he likes challenging cases. But his lies let a murderer off. Luckily the American justice system corrected that. I think it's telling that he wants to weigh in on this. I know trump would never hire him. The optics would end him.

a reply to: marg6043

Who trump? I agree.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Lots of lawyers convey a very different opinion.
Bob Mueller seems to be quietly building a case that will take on the supreme court should trump decide to use executive power to shut down any investigations.
There's enough to keep his admin bogged down til the midterms.
And as you just saw in the UK public opinion can change on a dime.
I call it the trump effect.

In any event I doubt this dog and pony show was what decent Americans elected him for and they are going to show that at the polls.

It remains to be seen who the public blame for this dog and pony show. We'll see.

a reply to: UKTruth

He said that he wants the investigation to continue. It's a lie.
He said he'd go under oath. It's a lie.
Trump is a liar.

He wants this to go away. He'd use executive power to end this if he didn't think it would hurt him in the long run. But knowing how he runs face first into trouble maybe he would anyway.

Either way it's bad for him.

a reply to: UKTruth

The President is the top person in the branch of govt responsible for enforcing the law.

He can stop the Executive Branch from investigating, but not Congress, and it is Congress that has the power to impeach him.