Comey fired
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2017, 04:30 PM
RE: Comey fired
(10-06-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I mean, let's say Melania gets busted shoplifting at Nordstrom. She's about to start her trial. Then Trump pardons her. Did he obstruct justice? Or did he use the power given to the president? He stopped justice with the stroke of a pen. But he can. The constitution says so.

Your example... if this actually happened, would you think it was right? Maybe it's time that you take a second look at your constitution? Because it also includes an impeachment process, which AFAICT is specifically designed to try and limit what could happen through presidential abuse of office, which is what your example would be.

The Comey thing... tell me it doesn't give you pause? At all? He *was* leading the Russia investigation. He *was* fired, with very little substantive reason given. And Trump himself is on record as saying that he needed the heat off him? This doesn't bother you at *all*?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
10-06-2017, 04:39 PM
RE: Comey fired
(10-06-2017 04:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I mean, let's say Melania gets busted shoplifting at Nordstrom. She's about to start her trial. Then Trump pardons her. Did he obstruct justice? Or did he use the power given to the president? He stopped justice with the stroke of a pen. But he can. The constitution says so.

Your example... if this actually happened, would you think it was right? Maybe it's time that you take a second look at your constitution? Because it also includes an impeachment process, which AFAICT is specifically designed to try and limit what could happen through presidential abuse of office, which is what your example would be.

The Comey thing... tell me it doesn't give you pause? At all? He *was* leading the Russia investigation. He *was* fired, with very little substantive reason given. And Trump himself is on record as saying that he needed the heat off him? This doesn't bother you at *all*?

In the case of Melania, perhaps it would be an abuse. But where do we draw the line? Family? Friends? Business partners? The constitution doesn't make a declaration.

As for Comey? I don't see the issue really. We know what the "heat" was that Trump was referring to. Comey said it as well. Trump wanted Comey to tell the American people the truth, that he wasn't under investigation. People are wrongly inferring the "heat" to mean the investigation. But even Comey admitted that Trump never asked, not even once, for the Russian election investigation to be halted. Considering the constant media attention, and the pressure that brings and with the stigma that comes with possibly being under investigation as wrongly reported by the media, I feel it was in Trump's rights to ask that the FBI publicly clarify he was not under investigation. In fact, as the head of the executive branch, I feel Comey violated an order by not following Trump's request to tell the American people he was not under investigation.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 04:48 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 04:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Comey fired
(10-06-2017 03:26 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 03:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  As usual, you can't see the forest for the trees.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017...nal-inves/

Still has nothing to do with Trump firing Comey and obstruction. Comey told Trump he was not under investigation THREE times. Then Comey was fired. A case for obstruction cannot be made if there is no motive. "Mr. Trump, you are hereby being charged with obstruction for firing the FBI director to stop the non existent investigation into your involvement with the russians."

Perhaps in the Flynn matter, but not in the case in the article you linked to first, because we now know Trump was not being investigated to begin with.

You don't know that. The Campaign was under investigation, (maybe not just Trump personally), and you don't know where that leads. You don't believe Comey in other statements, why do you insist we take him at his word in this one ? Not exactly consistent are you ? The question is inappropriate in the first place. Comey is under no obligation to tell someone whether they are being investigated. Maybe he just meant they were waiting to START it until more information was known.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-06-2017, 04:51 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 05:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Comey fired
(10-06-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 04:08 PM)morondog Wrote:  At Trump's instigation. And the reason we know this fabulous magic number 3 is because Trump mentioned it in his letter firing Comey. He seems to be unable to avoid blurting out stuff when he's worried.

True. But Comey confirmed it in his testimony. And that is all I'm saying here. How can Trump be guilty of obstruction for firing Comey, if his motive for firing him is to stop an investigation that he knew didn't exist? It just doesn't make sense. And as Comey admitted, and many legal scholars have pointed out, its within the power of the president to order the stoppage of an investigation into any other person other than himself as the head of the executive branch. I would say the president is actually the ONLY person who cannot be charged with obstruction, as the president has many legal remedies to stop an investigation in its tracks (unless the investigation is on him). I mean, let's say Melania gets busted shoplifting at Nordstrom. She's about to start her trial. Then Trump pardons her. Did he obstruct justice? Or did he use the power given to the president? He stopped justice with the stroke of a pen. But he can. The constitution says so.

The president has no power to CHANGE an investigation or obstruct the process of a case BEFORE the verdict or case is complete. You REALLY know nothing about the law or the criminal process. A pardon is not the same as interference. You are such a rationalizing ignoramus. He also cannot pardon in your example. Shoplifting is not a Federal crime.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-06-2017, 05:30 PM
RE: Comey fired
(10-06-2017 04:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  True. But Comey confirmed it in his testimony. And that is all I'm saying here. How can Trump be guilty of obstruction for firing Comey, if his motive for firing him is to stop an investigation that he knew didn't exist? It just doesn't make sense. And as Comey admitted, and many legal scholars have pointed out, its within the power of the president to order the stoppage of an investigation into any other person other than himself as the head of the executive branch. I would say the president is actually the ONLY person who cannot be charged with obstruction, as the president has many legal remedies to stop an investigation in its tracks (unless the investigation is on him). I mean, let's say Melania gets busted shoplifting at Nordstrom. She's about to start her trial. Then Trump pardons her. Did he obstruct justice? Or did he use the power given to the president? He stopped justice with the stroke of a pen. But he can. The constitution says so.

The president has no power to CHANGE an investigation or obstruct the process of a case BEFORE the verdict or case is complete. You REALLY know nothing about the law or the criminal process. A pardon is not the same as interference. You are such a rationalizing ignoramus. He also cannot pardon in your example. Shoplifting is not a Federal crime.

True, the president can only pardon federal crimes, but it was just an example. I could have said a drug offense or murder or whatever but it was the first thing that popped in my head.

But you are incorrect about the case before verdict. Comey admitted this in his testimony. The president, as head of the executive branch, has ultimate authority over ALL executive matters unless they are directly investigating him. Here, this will explain it. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...estigation

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 06:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Comey fired
(10-06-2017 05:30 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 04:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The president has no power to CHANGE an investigation or obstruct the process of a case BEFORE the verdict or case is complete. You REALLY know nothing about the law or the criminal process. A pardon is not the same as interference. You are such a rationalizing ignoramus. He also cannot pardon in your example. Shoplifting is not a Federal crime.

True, the president can only pardon federal crimes, but it was just an example. I could have said a drug offense or murder or whatever but it was the first thing that popped in my head.

But you are incorrect about the case before verdict. Comey admitted this in his testimony. The president, as head of the executive branch, has ultimate authority over ALL executive matters unless they are directly investigating him. Here, this will explain it. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...estigation

Quote: I could have said a drug offense or murder or whatever but it was the first thing that popped in my head.

But you didn't and you also screwed up the timing of the pardon and CLEARLY have no understanding of "obstruction".

Comey made other mistakes. You don't know what he meant and we know he thought the questions from Trump were strange and inappropriate, so he may have just answered anything to STOP him from pressuring him, (which is what he said he felt). The president has authority over executive matters BUT he cannot break the law, OR contribute in any way to the breaking of any laws, and neither can a Federal employee. If it comes down to a question, the employee has loyalty to the constitution BEFORE a law-breaking boss. We know Comey said he had things to say in private session. It's FAR FAR too early here to make any conclusions and Trump is a well-known serial liar. I wait until ALL the dirt comes out, and there is obviously going to be a LOT LOT more. (And he had the balls to say "lock her up" Facepalm ).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2017, 06:24 PM
RE: Comey fired
(10-06-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  And that is all I'm saying here. How can Trump be guilty of obstruction for firing Comey, if his motive for firing him is to stop an investigation that he knew didn't exist?

The investigation existed.

(10-06-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I would say the president is actually the ONLY person who cannot be charged with obstruction, as the president has many legal remedies to stop an investigation in its tracks (unless the investigation is on him).

The proble with your line of thinking here is the assumption that the investigation is limited a priori. That is not they way they run. You, as a cop, should know this already, but since you don't seem to, I'll help you out.

If evidence of another crime is discovered in the course of an investigation of the original alleged crime, the investigating officers, being sworn, have a duty to report such suspected malfeasance. That mean that an investigation into one crime can, and often does, have ramifications bearing upon someone who might at first to be uninvolved.

You were a beat cop. You were investigating a drug dealer, and in the course of that investigation you searched his house, and found a wedding ring belonging to a recent murder victim. Are you telling us that you would say, "I wouldn't report that, because that particular crime was not part of my bailiwick?

Yeah, bullshit. You would feed the information into the pipeline. And if that pipeline leads to the President, is that your worry? Or do you do your job?

Protip: there's only one right answer here.

(10-06-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I mean, let's say Melania gets busted shoplifting at Nordstrom. She's about to start her trial. Then Trump pardons her. Did he obstruct justice? Or did he use the power given to the president? He stopped justice with the stroke of a pen. But he can. The constitution says so.

Trump hasn't pardoned anyone. He's only fired someone. Why are you trying to equivocate two entirely different events?

That's right, because you're biased.

I don't know that Trump did anything wrong, but goddamn, it sure smells like it. And me, I'm a layman. Please tell me you weren't a detective. Please tell us that. Because clearly you've got an inability to follow a trail.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
10-06-2017, 06:30 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2017 06:34 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Comey fired
(10-06-2017 05:30 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  [...] but it was the first thing that popped in my head.

Vacuums suck in a lot of horseshit.

ETA: Also, the Constitution has authority over everyone in government.

Hardly surprised that this cop doesn't understand this point. He wouldn't know the Constitution from a hole in the wall.

Good thing this dumbfuck is retired -- he can't violate it ... any more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
10-06-2017, 06:34 PM
RE: Comey fired
(10-06-2017 06:24 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  And that is all I'm saying here. How can Trump be guilty of obstruction for firing Comey, if his motive for firing him is to stop an investigation that he knew didn't exist?

The investigation existed.

(10-06-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I would say the president is actually the ONLY person who cannot be charged with obstruction, as the president has many legal remedies to stop an investigation in its tracks (unless the investigation is on him).

The proble with your line of thinking here is the assumption that the investigation is limited a priori. That is not they way they run. You, as a cop, should know this already, but since you don't seem to, I'll help you out.

If evidence of another crime is discovered in the course of an investigation of the original alleged crime, the investigating officers, being sworn, have a duty to report such suspected malfeasance. That mean that an investigation into one crime can, and often does, have ramifications bearing upon someone who might at first to be uninvolved.

You were a beat cop. You were investigating a drug dealer, and in the course of that investigation you searched his house, and found a wedding ring belonging to a recent murder victim. Are you telling us that you would say, "I wouldn't report that, because that particular crime was not part of my bailiwick?

Yeah, bullshit. You would feed the information into the pipeline. And if that pipeline leads to the President, is that your worry? Or do you do your job?

Protip: there's only one right answer here.

(10-06-2017 04:19 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I mean, let's say Melania gets busted shoplifting at Nordstrom. She's about to start her trial. Then Trump pardons her. Did he obstruct justice? Or did he use the power given to the president? He stopped justice with the stroke of a pen. But he can. The constitution says so.

Trump hasn't pardoned anyone. He's only fired someone. Why are you trying to equivocate two entirely different events?

That's right, because you're biased.

I don't know that Trump did anything wrong, but goddamn, it sure smells like it. And me, I'm a layman. Please tell me you weren't a detective. Please tell us that. Because clearly you've got an inability to follow a trail.

You're missing my point entirely. Yes, there is an investigation into Russian election tampering. No, Trump is not a part of that investigation as per Comey's testimony. So no, there was NO Trump investigation. Comey confirmed this in his testimony.

Could that change if the special prosecutor finds something? Absolutely.

But at the time of Comey's firing, Trump was told THREE times that he was not under investigation. Trump wanted Comey to make a public statement that he was not under investigation, but Comey wouldn't do it. So he was fired. Trump wants YES men. End of story. If he says it, you do it or lose your job. Comey testified that Trump NEVER asked to drop the Russian election case. Not once. Comey also said that Trump mentioned that he was fine with the investigation even if it was found out that someone on his staff did something improper.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2017, 01:28 AM
RE: Comey fired
(10-06-2017 06:34 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(10-06-2017 06:24 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  The investigation existed.


The proble with your line of thinking here is the assumption that the investigation is limited a priori. That is not they way they run. You, as a cop, should know this already, but since you don't seem to, I'll help you out.

If evidence of another crime is discovered in the course of an investigation of the original alleged crime, the investigating officers, being sworn, have a duty to report such suspected malfeasance. That mean that an investigation into one crime can, and often does, have ramifications bearing upon someone who might at first to be uninvolved.

You were a beat cop. You were investigating a drug dealer, and in the course of that investigation you searched his house, and found a wedding ring belonging to a recent murder victim. Are you telling us that you would say, "I wouldn't report that, because that particular crime was not part of my bailiwick?

Yeah, bullshit. You would feed the information into the pipeline. And if that pipeline leads to the President, is that your worry? Or do you do your job?

Protip: there's only one right answer here.


Trump hasn't pardoned anyone. He's only fired someone. Why are you trying to equivocate two entirely different events?

That's right, because you're biased.

I don't know that Trump did anything wrong, but goddamn, it sure smells like it. And me, I'm a layman. Please tell me you weren't a detective. Please tell us that. Because clearly you've got an inability to follow a trail.

You're missing my point entirely. Yes, there is an investigation into Russian election tampering. No, Trump is not a part of that investigation as per Comey's testimony. So no, there was NO Trump investigation. Comey confirmed this in his testimony.

Could that change if the special prosecutor finds something? Absolutely.

But at the time of Comey's firing, Trump was told THREE times that he was not under investigation. Trump wanted Comey to make a public statement that he was not under investigation, but Comey wouldn't do it. So he was fired. Trump wants YES men. End of story. If he says it, you do it or lose your job. Comey testified that Trump NEVER asked to drop the Russian election case. Not once. Comey also said that Trump mentioned that he was fine with the investigation even if it was found out that someone on his staff did something improper.


So the President firing a 10 year term a supposedly impartial position, who just happens to be the head of a branch with an active investigation directly tied to the President. Watergate didn't start out targeting Nixon either.

What makes you think that Comey's replacement will be anything but a 'yes-man' sycophant, willing to trade integrity and loyalty to Trump in exchange for favors and political advancement?








If anyone had even close to a legitimate case to fire Comey, it was Obama, and yet he didn't. This is fuckin' flim-flam LDH, and if you can't see that, I'd encourage you to take another long swig of that Kool-Aid.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: