It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: introvert
True, except for the potential obstruction of justice issue in regards to Comey. Though I don't see much coming out of that.
Obstruction of justice requires a nefarious intent.
What Trump did is not obstruction of justice and given that he is the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government he has the same abilities as the chief law enforcement officers at the state / local levels.
As for firing Comey you cant have a violation of the law when a person is exercising their constitutional authority. As head of the executive branch the President can fire political appointees without cause. Secondly the termination of Comey had no impact on the investigations seeing he was not running any of the investigations. McCabe already testified to Congress Comey's termination had no impact on any investigations.
Finally Trump has stated time and again he has no intention of firing Mueller. Something the left cant seem to wrap their heads around since they repeat the lie Trump wants him gone on a daily basis.
Given Sessions has been cleared by the FBI over the bs russia crap he needs to unrecuse himself.
You guys need to learn how our Constitution / laws work before labeling.
originally posted by: introvert
How do you know what his intent was? That is why that is not being investigated.
originally posted by: introvert
Violation of law is up in the air, though it has been grounds for articles of impeachment in the past.
Specifically, Nixon's article of impeachment include a very similar charge.
originally posted by: introvert
Irrelevant to the point here.
originally posted by: introvert
Not sure you are in a position to point fingers about the constitution and laws.
I remember the conversation you were part of a few days ago in which you had proven to be ignorant of some very basic principles.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Exactly. We cannot say for certain it was a lie, unless we have proof she intended to lie or she knew what she was telling others was false.
That is the difference that is very important.
I disagree. It shows bias among a couple people within the FBI. Nothing more.
We need a lot more context to extrapolate any further than that.
Tomfoolery does not equal illegal or unethical action being taken.
How do we know that? Investigation is not over yet.
Completely out of proportion. We have very few facts and conspiracies have taken over...being pushed by many in order to obfuscate are deflect.
You have the allegation, but you do not have evidence of it being absolutely true.
All I am saying is this should be presented in complete context and we should not get caught-up in the unfounded accusations and conspiracies...and try to push those off as being truth.
By Comey's own testimony. No quid pro quo nor threat was made to end the investigation. Unless you are suggesting Comey was lying.
Nixon's mess came from a nefarious intent to hide facts and evidence from the investigator. That whole issue revolving around the tape recordings and his invocation of executive privilege. When the courts ruled against him he resigned shortly there after. Again the big difference being intent... a word people should be familiar with.
quite the contrary actually. Being the left went down the same bs russia road with Sessions as they did Trump it speaks volumes.
Not really but whatever works for you.
The difference that is even more important is that Hillary was handled differently than Flynn in how the discussions were held. Had Flynn been given an opportunity to invite in counsel he likely would have had the same type of advice that Hillary was given.
And thus my belief that it needs to be investigated by an independant party. Because it looks a whole lot worse than the Trump Collusion thing looked, IMO.
How would you know without an investigation?
And still, as of right now, they cannot seem to find any dirt.
They HAVE, however, uncovered evidence of something far more sinister on another party, and seem to be ignoring it (along with about half the country).
We have enough facts to investigate. Why can't that be done? Do you disagree that it should happen?
The entire Trump Collusion thing is an attempt to derail a Presidency. Looks like the partisans are having their way, huh?
Because the FBI won't release the information that would prove or disprove it.
The evidence uncovered so far, combined with the refusal to release information and comply with congressional requests seems to be just as damning as someone accepting a plea deal.
I just want them both to be given the same amount of effort. I believe Trump is a crooked SOB. I think the Federal Government is far, far, far worse.
originally posted by: introvert
So now you believe Comey? Aren't you arguing in another thread against want Comey said?
It seems...contradictory.
originally posted by: introvert
And also the difference is that you do not need intent to impeach someone. You can be impeached for damn near anything as long as they vote in the required numbers.
originally posted by: introvert
Again, irrelevant to our discussion.
originally posted by: introvert
You've already contradicted yourself.
Not sure your opinion has any value at this point, considering that you cannot be consistent in your arguments.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra
How do you know what his intent was?
Interesting response... you cite Comey as fact and then find it contradictory when something Comey said is posted that doesnt support your narrative.
Since impeachment is a political question and not a legal question you dont need really anything to impeach. High crimes and misdemeanors is defined by Congress and not by statute. try again.
Only because it destroys the false Russia narrative lie the left is desperately holding onto.
actually I havent. what I have done is destroy your argument using facts. You should try it sometime.
originally posted by: pavil
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra
How do you know what his intent was?
Hmmm I seem to remember something about intent with somebody else, now who was that?
Something about a server of some sort of minor thing.....they had to prove intent.
Hmmm It will come to me.....
Funny how that works one way, isn't it.
a reply to: introvert
Again, there would be nothing to this if Trump's team had not put themselves in this position.
Don't blame others for their own actions.
originally posted by: introvert
What narrative? I already said I don't think there is much to anything Trump has been accused of, but his handling of Comey is/was cause for concern.
originally posted by: introvert
That is literally what I just said.
originally posted by: introvert
No. It's irrelevant because we were not discussion that topic and for some reason you found it fitting to throw in there.
originally posted by: introvert
Such arrogance. It's quite entertaining.
originally posted by: introvert
Anyway, you were proven wrong on the thread the other day, in regards to law, and were just proven wrong, by me, in another. Perhaps you should spend more time reading up on the law and constitution you claim to know so much about and less time fluffing your fragile ego.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: soberbacchus
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus
so the doj did not release these?
lol
your version of this is the doj gave these to the house judiciary COMMITTEE then the COMMITTEE gave "edited" versions of the texts to the press?
Even if that were the case there are dems on the COMMITTEE as well so it still would not be the "GOP" releasing this it would be the COMMITTEE
whatever you say
It is my understanding that the DoJ released the info to congress, not the press or to the public.
It's also important to note that apparently the emails also contained disparaging comments about people on the Left as well. Specifically Bernie Sanders.
And Eric Holder
So the real question we have to answer is if those biases affected the way they conducted their jobs in any way.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: introvert
What narrative? I already said I don't think there is much to anything Trump has been accused of, but his handling of Comey is/was cause for concern.
His handling of Comey was based on recommendations of his AG and DAG.
Never mind the fact he needed no justifications to terminate comey and doing so is not a violation of any laws.
originally posted by: soberbacchus
Not according to Trump.
originally posted by: soberbacchus
He can fire anyone he likes, but attempting to obstruct justice or interfere with a lawful investigation is Illegal.