It appears Trump is offically under investigation for obstruction

[Allandavid]

I repudiate any effort to "mind-read." Your own posts are enough. Requesting some people make a demonstration of how Trump "didn't" obstruct justice, while certainly making no effort of your own to show how Trump did obstruct justice, and equally revealing is a conspicuous lack of a demand anyone show how Trump obstructed justice, demonstrates your default perspective of Trump did obstruct justice.

I make no assumption of who you are attempting to emulate and I couldn't care less. I couldn't care less if you were trying to emulate Clarence Darrow, Laurence Tribe, Johnny Cochran, or John Marshall.

Again, your assumptions run rampant...!

Please show where I have used the legal term "obstruction of justice".

I haven't. Yet, like a hound returning to its regurgitated meal, you continue to assume that I am making a LEGAL analysis.

At every turn, I have used the language of a layman...one who simply observes another doing what he can to slow down or stop investigations into his activities. Again I repeat...IF a legal mind is able to construct a case against Trump over this....great!

 

[Rion]

Again, your assumptions run rampant...!

Please show where I have used the legal term "obstruction of justice".

I haven't. Yet, like a hound returning to its regurgitated meal, you continue to assume that I am making a LEGAL analysis.

At every turn, I have used the language of a layman...one who simply observes another doing what he can to slow down or stop investigations into his activities. Again I repeat...IF a legal mind is able to construct a case against Trump over this....great!

I believe that is called the Glenn Beck defense: “I'm not a lawyer. I am a thinker.”

 

[Allandavid]

I believe that is called the Glenn Beck defense: “I'm not a lawyer. I am a thinker.”

No, it's called the 'I have presented a consistent argument throughout' position...

 

[mark kennedy]

You clearly are predisposed to allege Trump obstructed justice and refuse to provide any support for your allegation.

Not true, I'm just not chasing your arguments in circles.

Had you read the statutes, and engaged in a sufficient amount of research, you'd realize the following:

There are two, maybe a third, of the six, obstruction of justice statutes that may be applicable to these facts.

Ok your talking about 1505 and 1512

​

1. Of those three, one is not immediately applicable on the basis of the facts as they are presently known because:

A. The statute has, as one of its elements, a "pending judicial proceeding," and there is no evidence a pending judicial proceeding existed when Trump spoke to Comey and/or fired him and/or
B. If a pending judicial proceeding existed there is no evidence Trump knew of the proceeding and/or
C. No evidence Trump intended to interfere or obstruct with the pending judicial proceeding​

Michael Flynn was under subpoena, 'federal prosecutors had recently issued grand jury subpoenas seeking business records from associates of Mike Flynn' (CNN). That's a pending judicial proceeding:

Andrew Crespo recently noted, the FBI investigation may not be the only proceeding at issue here: even if [the] narrower view [of § 1505] were to prevail, Trump arguably endeavored to influence two other investigations that, as others observe, are more clearly covered by the statute: the pending grand jury investigation of Michael Flynn, and the pending congressional investigations of Russia’s role in the election. (Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under the Obstruction of Justice Statutes? A Closer Look. Lawfare Blog)
​

2. The applicability of the other obstruction of justice statute is problematic because of:

A. The manner in which some courts have interpreted a particular element of the statute would exclude an FBI investigation.
B. The U.S. attorney's manual states “investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings"
C. However, another court's reasoning and rationale by render FBI investigations as a 1505 proceeding when the FBI is engaged in a particular kind, a particular type of investigation.
D. However, there are some facts, legal arguments, statutory interpretation, and decisions which may render the FBI investigation as a 1505 "proceeding."​

The elements here have been variously described as; ”incompletely defined, redundant, and internally inconsistent”...“fairly incoherent, often overlapping, and overbroad—leaving much to the discretion of prosecutors.” (Lawfare Blog)

In short maybe or maybe not, one thing is sure, Trump has got a ways to go before this is behind him.

3. In regards to the possibly third obstruction of justice statute, two federal circuit court of appeals decisions have interpreted "official proceeding" as to exclude an FBI investigation, whereas a single circuit appellate court has determined an "official proceeding" does include an FBI investigation in 1512.

It's really not that simple but Federal Law rarely is:

the former statutory scheme was organized on the basis of the identification of the victim of the illegal act as either a witness or party. Sections 1512 and 1513 eliminate these categories and focus instead on the intent of the wrongdoer. If the illegal act was intended to affect the future conduct of any person in connection with his/her participation in Federal proceedings or his/her communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers, it is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1512. If, on the other hand, the illegal act was intended as a response to past conduct of that nature, it is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1513. (Lawfare Blog)
​

So it really comes down to intent, whether past or future involvement in, 'communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers', or, 'past illegal act'. This is something Trump never understood about why Clinton was never charged, they couldn't meet the burden of proof with regards to intent.

I'm rather incredulous to this assertion, because if you had done "enough research to come to an informed conclusion" then you should have discovered the information I disclosed above, and this information unequivocally demonstrates it is not at all "clear" Trump violated these statutes.

It's also not at all clear he did not and I'm seeing definite signs of intent here. Flynn had recently had his business records subpoenaed, the FBI had also asked for more resources to widen the investigation.

Invoking formal reasoning fallacies most assuredly provides the initial appearance of being impressive, but the impressive glare is immediately obscured when the fallacy is demonstrably inapplicable, rendering the invoking of then fallacy as nothing more than an ostentatious act. I have yet to engage in "begging the question of proof." You may want to look up and rethink what you know about the fallacy.

I understand it well enough, your concluding the burden of proof is not met because it a certain statute doesn't apply to FBI investigations and there is no real proof of Trump's knowledge of impending judicial proceedings. These investigations have a much broader scope, counterintelligence investigations conducted under the auspices of the Attorney General is yet another problem with the superficial logic here.

This is revisionist history. Nixon engaged in egregious conduct that demonstrated more than a "suggestion of a cover up."

Indeed, refusing to surrender the tapes was arguably his fatal mistake. My point is that all that was actually on the tape that implicated him in any kind of wrong doing is when he said, 'uh huh'. It wasn't Nixon, it was his staff and he was trying to protect them. I have no interest in revising anything. I am grieved at the resignation of Nixon, I was offended and embarrassed at the impeachment of Clinton I believed to be entirely political and the impeachment of Johnson was one of the great miscarriages of justice in American history.

I don't want Trump to go down like this, I want him to lose on the basis of a national consensus in an open election in 2020. I will resist and oppose much of his agenda as a Democrat and a concerned citizen because I think it's a pro status quo agenda that is detrimental to our economy and way of life.

However, he is President of the United States and has every right to pursue his agenda using every legal and political means at his disposal. I honestly hope he weathers this storm and learns to navigate these trappings more skillfully over time.

That said it is clear to me that there is more then ample evidence of obstruction that may well meet the burden of proof in an impeachment. Consider this:

So the real question boils down to this: Does the pattern of conduct that is emerging, in the view of a majority of the House of Representatives and a two-thirds majority of the Senate, constitute an obstruction of justice of a type that is grounds for impeachment and removal?

...In its impeachment function, Congress may not care how courts have narrowly defined “proceeding” or how precisely the conduct at issue maps onto to any specific criminal statute. Notably, Richard Nixon’s articles of impeachment charged “interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States [and] the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The articles cite no criminal statute at all. (Lawfare Blog)
​

I'm not anticipating impeachment proceedings, not unless a fair number of Republicans smell a breach of the balance of powers as the did with Nixon. I think the solution is simple enough if Donald Trump has the maturity to be up to it. In the words of Joe Biden, 'Grow up Donald, it's time to govern'. And for future reference, my challenge to you was to make a substantive argument based on the statutory law you were making vague references to. You offer a substantive argument on the other hand, I'm happy to pursue the discussion at any length.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[NotreDame]

Not true, I'm just not chasing your arguments in circles.



Ok your talking about 1505 and 1512

​

Michael Flynn was under subpoena, 'federal prosecutors had recently issued grand jury subpoenas seeking business records from associates of Mike Flynn' (CNN). That's a pending judicial proceeding:

Andrew Crespo recently noted, the FBI investigation may not be the only proceeding at issue here: even if [the] narrower view [of § 1505] were to prevail, Trump arguably endeavored to influence two other investigations that, as others observe, are more clearly covered by the statute: the pending grand jury investigation of Michael Flynn, and the pending congressional investigations of Russia’s role in the election. (Does an FBI Investigation Qualify Under the Obstruction of Justice Statutes? A Closer Look. Lawfare Blog)
​

The elements here have been variously described as; ”incompletely defined, redundant, and internally inconsistent”...“fairly incoherent, often overlapping, and overbroad—leaving much to the discretion of prosecutors.” (Lawfare Blog)

In short maybe or maybe not, one thing is sure, Trump has got a ways to go before this is behind him.



It's really not that simple but Federal Law rarely is:

the former statutory scheme was organized on the basis of the identification of the victim of the illegal act as either a witness or party. Sections 1512 and 1513 eliminate these categories and focus instead on the intent of the wrongdoer. If the illegal act was intended to affect the future conduct of any person in connection with his/her participation in Federal proceedings or his/her communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers, it is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1512. If, on the other hand, the illegal act was intended as a response to past conduct of that nature, it is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1513. (Lawfare Blog)
​

So it really comes down to intent, whether past or future involvement in, 'communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers', or, 'past illegal act'. This is something Trump never understood about why Clinton was never charged, they couldn't meet the burden of proof with regards to intent.



It's also not at all clear he did not and I'm seeing definite signs of intent here. Flynn had recently had his business records subpoenaed, the FBI had also asked for more resources to widen the investigation.



I understand it well enough, your concluding the burden of proof is not met because it a certain statute doesn't apply to FBI investigations and there is no real proof of Trump's knowledge of impending judicial proceedings. These investigations have a much broader scope, counterintelligence investigations conducted under the auspices of the Attorney General is yet another problem with the superficial logic here.



Indeed, refusing to surrender the tapes was arguably his fatal mistake. My point is that all that was actually on the tape that implicated him in any kind of wrong doing is when he said, 'uh huh'. It wasn't Nixon, it was his staff and he was trying to protect them. I have no interest in revising anything. I am grieved at the resignation of Nixon, I was offended and embarrassed at the impeachment of Clinton I believed to be entirely political and the impeachment of Johnson was one of the great miscarriages of justice in American history.

I don't want Trump to go down like this, I want him to lose on the basis of a national consensus in an open election in 2020. I will resist and oppose much of his agenda as a Democrat and a concerned citizen because I think it's a pro status quo agenda that is detrimental to our economy and way of life.

However, he is President of the United States and has every right to pursue his agenda using every legal and political means at his disposal. I honestly hope he weathers this storm and learns to navigate these trappings more skillfully over time.

That said it is clear to me that there is more then ample evidence of obstruction that may well meet the burden of proof in an impeachment. Consider this:

So the real question boils down to this: Does the pattern of conduct that is emerging, in the view of a majority of the House of Representatives and a two-thirds majority of the Senate, constitute an obstruction of justice of a type that is grounds for impeachment and removal?

...In its impeachment function, Congress may not care how courts have narrowly defined “proceeding” or how precisely the conduct at issue maps onto to any specific criminal statute. Notably, Richard Nixon’s articles of impeachment charged “interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States [and] the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The articles cite no criminal statute at all. (Lawfare Blog)
​

I'm not anticipating impeachment proceedings, not unless a fair number of Republicans smell a breach of the balance of powers as the did with Nixon. I think the solution is simple enough if Donald Trump has the maturity to be up to it. In the words of Joe Biden, 'Grow up Donald, it's time to govern'. And for future reference, my challenge to you was to make a substantive argument based on the statutory law you were making vague references to. You offer a substantive argument on the other hand, I'm happy to pursue the discussion at any length.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Ok your talking about 1505 and 1512

I'm discussing more than 1505 and 1512. There is a third.

Michael Flynn was under subpoena, 'federal prosecutors had recently issued grand jury subpoenas seeking business records from associates of Mike Flynn' (CNN). That's a pending judicial proceeding:

CNN reporting a grand jury investigation exists isn't sufficient evidence one does exist. The CNN report was based on anonymous sources and their information has not been confirmed. Indeed, officials have not confirmed the existence of a grand jury.

Even if one did exist, we do not have evidence of when the grand jury convened in relation to Trump's conduct, which is problematic, and given the rather covert character of the grand jury, we have no evidence of when Trump was aware of the grand jury.

counterintelligence investigations conducted under the auspices of the Attorney General is yet another problem with the superficial logic here.

Incorrect. As I stated previously, it isn't at all clear FBI counterintelligence investigations qualify. The reason for a lack of clarity is in part because A) no court has held they qualify under one particular statute but there are two tests presently used by federal courts, one test which would exclude FBI counterintelligence investigations and another test which may include counterintelligence investigations but it is uncertain such a test would since no court has relied upon the test to hold counterintelligence investigations qualify and B) two federal appellate courts have specifically held they do not qualify under another statute, while a third appellate court has said they do.

The only "superficial logic" here is your treatment of a lack of a definitive legal answer as a "clear" and definitive one. The lack of any definitive answer by the federal courts defies any notion Trump violated two of the obstruction of justice statutes. The lack of clarity in regards to the existence of a grand jury investigation, when the grand jury began, whether it exists, renders unclear as to whether Trump violated a third obstruction of justice statute.

(Lawfare Blog)

Interesting. You cite lawfare blog but apparently missed their blog where they spilled considerable ink showing the lack of legal clarity and certainty as to whether FBI investigations, including counterintelligence, are applicable in regards to two of those obstruction of justice statutes we have just discussed.

That said it is clear to me that there is more then ample evidence of obstruction that may well meet the burden of proof in an impeachment.

This conclusion, specifically the qualifying word "clear" is logically impossible to be deduced because of a lack of definitive and unequivocal direction from the federal courts on the issue and question of whether FBI investigations are included under the two obstruction of justice statutes. There are two federal appellate courts holding FBI investigations do not qualify under one specific statute, whereas a single federal appellate court has reached the contrary conclusion in regards to that statute, and in regards to the other statute, no federal appellate court has held an FBI investigation is contemplated by the statute but a test espoused by a federal district court would surely exclude the FBI investigation.

Somehow, magically, you deduce from the quagmire of uncertainty in the above paragraph an impossible certainty that Trump "clearly" violated these statutes.

My point has been it isn't at all "clear" Trump violated these obstruction of justice statutes because of the dense fog that exists from a lack of answers by federal courts in regards to one statute, and a split by federal courts in regards to another statute in which, at the moment, two federal appellate courts say no, but one says yes.

And for future reference, my challenge to you was to make a substantive argument based on the statutory law you were making vague references to.

This is cute. A substantive argument from you is what has been missing from your posts, and what I have been requesting repeatedly. You have made the assertion Trump "clearly" obstructed justice, and it was your burden to support this allegation, which you repeatedly did not do when asked. The difficulty was your repeated refusal to make any substantive argument to support your claim Trump obstructed justice.

My request for you to make an argument to support your claim of obstruction is independent of and unrelated to whether I make any argument, as you still have the burden of substantiating the claims you make.

You offer a substantive argument on the other hand, I'm happy to pursue the discussion at any length.

Follow your own admonishment, as you were requested repeatedly to support your allegation Trump clearly obstructed justice, and you refused, repeatedly, to do so. And my request you substantiate your claim is not to invoke a "substantive argument." It is unadulterated non-sense to obscure your obligation to substantiate your claims behind this irrational notion someone else must first make a substantive argument before you do so. This perception of "No, I am not substantiating my claim until you go first," which accurately rephrases your perspective, is misguided.

And my request you substantiate your claim does not require me to make any "substantive argument" and does not qualify as a "substantive argument."

 

[NotreDame]

Again, your assumptions run rampant...!

Please show where I have used the legal term "obstruction of justice".

I haven't. Yet, like a hound returning to its regurgitated meal, you continue to assume that I am making a LEGAL analysis.

At every turn, I have used the language of a layman...one who simply observes another doing what he can to slow down or stop investigations into his activities. Again I repeat...IF a legal mind is able to construct a case against Trump over this....great!

This can't be right because what you've just said does not make sense. So, when you ask people to demonstrate how Trump did not obstruct, you are not referring to an actual, defined, and written obstruction of justice statute, but instead you are requesting people show how Trump did not obstruct some undefined, unknown, metaphysical and philosophical notion of "obstruction."

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm discussing more than 1505 and 1512. There is a third.

CNN reporting a grand jury investigation exists isn't sufficient evidence one does exist. The CNN report was based on anonymous sources and their information has not been confirmed. Indeed, officials have not confirmed the existence of a grand jury.

Even if one did exist, we do not have evidence of when the grand jury convened in relation to Trump's conduct, which is problematic, and given the rather covert character of the grand jury, we have no evidence of when Trump was aware of the grand jury.

As discussed by former FBI Director Comey in congressional testimony last week, and reported by CNN, a grand jury is now gathering evidence in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of its investigation of Michael Flynn. (With James Comey Gone, These Three FBI and DOJ Officials Are Running the Russia-Trump Probe, The Intercept)​

All the major new outlets, including Fox News are reporting that the subpoenas were issued just hours before Comey was fired. He is going around trying to get Flynn a break, he hears about the subpoenas and fires Comey, expressly over, 'the Russia thing'. All the Eastern District and Dana Boente have to do is say no we didn't. That's why Coats and Rogers could only discuss what was said between them and Trump in closed session, they can't disclose prejudicial information. This was a prime opportunity for Fox News to expose CNN for being fake news but the reporting was credible. Your in denial.

Incorrect. As I stated previously, it isn't at all clear FBI counterintelligence investigations qualify. The reason for a lack of clarity is in part because A) no court has held they qualify under one particular statute but there are two tests presently used by federal courts, one test which would exclude FBI counterintelligence investigations and another test which may include counterintelligence investigations but it is uncertain such a test would since no court has relied upon the test to hold counterintelligence investigations qualify and B) two federal appellate courts have specifically held they do not qualify under another statute, while a third appellate court has said they do.

This isn't going to be used in a Federal Court, this is laying the ground work for Impeachment proceedings. You just have to convince a two thirds majority in Congress and the Supreme Court would oversee this. You've completely lost sight of the fact here that evidence is mounting. Trump says he fired Comey because he couldn't effective lead the FBI, that was a lie. The official story was it was based on recommendations of the AG, something Trump flatly denied the following day, clearly indicating it was the 'Russia thing' in the immediate context. If he is knowingly and corruptly obstructing the investigation into Flynn and Russia meddling the special prosecutor will not have a problem finding the appropriate statute to cite, it's up to the discretion of the prosecution anyway.

The only "superficial logic" here is your treatment of a lack of a definitive legal answer as a "clear" and definitive one. The lack of any definitive answer by the federal courts defies any notion Trump violated two of the obstruction of justice statutes. The lack of clarity in regards to the existence of a grand jury investigation, when the grand jury began, whether it exists, renders unclear as to whether Trump violated a third obstruction of justice statute.

There is ample evidence of obstruction, the only question is whether or not there is a provable case.

Interesting. You cite lawfare blog but apparently missed their blog where they spilled considerable ink showing the lack of legal clarity and certainty as to whether FBI investigations, including counterintelligence, are applicable in regards to two of those obstruction of justice statutes we have just discussed.

This is the subject matter of briefs and it's all purely academic, they could argue endlessly what statute applies, but it's obvious Trump was obsessed with Flynn and the Russia investigation. Subpoenas are coming down, the FBI is ramping up the investigation, Flynn has been asking for immunity and Trump is looking for a way to make this 'cloud' go away. One or two coincidences here would be easily dismissed but he is firing the Attorney General, Federal Attorneys and the FBI director because they are upholding the rule of law. This isn't an isolated incident, there is a pattern here.

This conclusion, specifically the qualifying word "clear" is logically impossible to be deduced because of a lack of definitive and unequivocal direction from the federal courts on the issue and question of whether FBI investigations are included under the two obstruction of justice statutes. There are two federal appellate courts holding FBI investigations do not qualify under one specific statute, whereas a single federal appellate court has reached the contrary conclusion in regards to that statute, and in regards to the other statute, no federal appellate court has held an FBI investigation is contemplated by the statute but a test espoused by a federal district court would surely exclude the FBI investigation.

You really are missing the bottom line here, it's not going to come down to semantical hair splitting:

So the real question boils down to this: Does the pattern of conduct that is emerging, in the view of a majority of the House of Representatives and a two-thirds majority of the Senate, constitute an obstruction of justice of a type that is grounds for impeachment and removal?

...In its impeachment function, Congress may not care how courts have narrowly defined “proceeding” or how precisely the conduct at issue maps onto to any specific criminal statute. Notably, Richard Nixon’s articles of impeachment charged “interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States [and] the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The articles cite no criminal statute at all. (Lawfare Blog)​

Somehow, magically, you deduce from the quagmire of uncertainty in the above paragraph an impossible certainty that Trump "clearly" violated these statutes.

Clearly there is evidence he did, whether or not a meets the burden of proof comes down to whether or not it was corrupt intent.

My point has been it isn't at all "clear" Trump violated these obstruction of justice statutes because of the dense fog that exists from a lack of answers by federal courts in regards to one statute, and a split by federal courts in regards to another statute in which, at the moment, two federal appellate courts say no, but one says yes.

It's not going to be tried in the appellate courts, you seem oblivious to the fact that these investigations lead to investigation and invariably are used politically. Yea the statutes are sufficiently ambiguise to argue endlessly in circles there is no obstruction, which I fully expect the alt right will do. It won't stop the truth from coming out and this is going to take years before all the facts are in.

This is cute. A substantive argument from you is what has been missing from your posts, and what I have been requesting repeatedly. You have made the assertion Trump "clearly" obstructed justice, and it was your burden to support this allegation, which you repeatedly did not do when asked. The difficulty was your repeated refusal to make any substantive argument to support your claim Trump obstructed justice.

I know how circular arguments work. You demand an argument based on the statute and whatever the argument you deny it's sufficient, which is why I wasn't chasing it around the mulberry bush until you discussed the statutes specifically. Now your drifting away from them and making the same pedantic point. I'm still not interested in chasing it in circles.

My request for you to make an argument to support your claim of obstruction is independent of and unrelated to whether I make any argument, as you still have the burden of substantiating the claims you make.

I don't have the burden of anything, making demands of arguments your going to dismiss in circles isn't an argument, it's a dodge.

Follow your own admonishment, as you were requested repeatedly to support your allegation Trump clearly obstructed justice, and you refused, repeatedly, to do so. And my request you substantiate your claim is not to invoke a "substantive argument." It is unadulterated non-sense to obscure your obligation to substantiate your claims behind this irrational notion someone else must first make a substantive argument before you do so. This perception of "No, I am not substantiating my claim until you go first," which accurately rephrases your perspective, is misguided.

Like I told you when you started this line of discussion. If you want to argue from the statutes go for it, you just don't get to demand that I must. When you make a substantive argument along those lines I will be happy to respond, it's an interesting discussion. When you start in with the fallacious rhetoric the alt right was built on I'll pass, thanks just the same.

And my request you substantiate your claim does not require me to make any "substantive argument" and does not qualify as a "substantive argument."

There was actually a good deal that was substantive in my argument that you straight away ignored, first the interpretation is left to the discretion of the prosecutors:

The elements here have been variously described as; ”incompletely defined, redundant, and internally inconsistent”...“fairly incoherent, often overlapping, and overbroad—leaving much to the discretion of prosecutors.” (Lawfare Blog)​

Then there is the question of whether the intent of the wrongdoer was intended to affect future conduct (1512), or past conduct (1513):

the former statutory scheme was organized on the basis of the identification of the victim of the illegal act as either a witness or party. Sections 1512 and 1513 eliminate these categories and focus instead on the intent of the wrongdoer. If the illegal act was intended to affect the future conduct of any person in connection with his/her participation in Federal proceedings or his/her communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers, it is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1512. If, on the other hand, the illegal act was intended as a response to past conduct of that nature, it is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1513. (Lawfare Blog)
​

The Congress probably won't be all that worried about some semantical point regarding the definition of 'proceeding':

...In its impeachment function, Congress may not care how courts have narrowly defined “proceeding” or how precisely the conduct at issue maps onto to any specific criminal statute. Notably, Richard Nixon’s articles of impeachment charged “interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States [and] the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The articles cite no criminal statute at all. (Lawfare Blog)
​

Feel free to argue this in circles till you make yourself dizzy, I don't mind a bit. Just don't expect me to chase the fallacious rhetoric in circles for your amusement.

 

[Albion]

It's now known that the Russia-Trump thing was mainly an invention of CNN for purposes of enhancing the network's viewership, and yet the Democrat Party's dutiful watercarriers will still go on trying to hype it as if it were real.

What a state of affairs we've come to when that's the situation before us. With Nixon there was at least an actual break-in at the Watergate and there was an actual Monica Lewinsky in the Clinton scandal.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's now known that the Russia-Trump thing was mainly an invention of CNN for purposes of enhancing the network's viewership, and yet the Democrat Party's dutiful watercarriers will still go on trying to hype it as if it were real.

What a state of affairs we've come to when that's the situation before us. With Nixon there was at least an actual break-in at the Watergate and there was an actual Monica Lewinsky in the Clinton scandal.

Right, because there was no actual hacking of 21 state polls.

 

[Albion]

Right, because there was no actual hacking of 21 state polls.

I missed the part where Donald Trump is responsible for doing that. Maybe you could explain it in a future post. I'm aware that various Democrats cooperated with the Russians, gave the Hillary campaign's password to them, and all of that, but where did Trump do anything to hack into any state "polls?"

 

[mark kennedy]

I missed the part where Donald Trump is responsible for doing that. Maybe you could explain it in a future post.

No I don't think he hacked anything, he does have some real issues with regards to the investigation.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's now known that the Russia-Trump thing was mainly an invention of CNN

Known by who, exactly?

 

[Allandavid]

It's now known that the Russia-Trump thing was mainly an invention of CNN for purposes of enhancing the network's viewership, and yet the Democrat Party's dutiful watercarriers will still go on trying to hype it as if it were real.

What a state of affairs we've come to when that's the situation before us. With Nixon there was at least an actual break-in at the Watergate and there was an actual Monica Lewinsky in the Clinton scandal.

And that "invention" managed to fool all of the various investigations going on....? Because they obviously think such a link is worth investigating....

 

[camille70]

It's now known that the Russia-Trump thing was mainly an invention of CNN for purposes of enhancing the network's viewership, and yet the Democrat Party's dutiful watercarriers will still go on trying to hype it as if it were real.

What a state of affairs we've come to when that's the situation before us. With Nixon there was at least an actual break-in at the Watergate and there was an actual Monica Lewinsky in the Clinton scandal.

This is no different than the coverage given to Hillary's emails. It doesn't mean there isn't a story or anything actually there, but covering it to almost the exclusion of almost everything else for ratings when there are no new developments makes little sense. Well it makes sense in that they are making money, but not from the aspect of doing a public good or providing actual news.

That kind of wall to wall coverage is what helped him get elected though, so don't demonize it now (not you, DT) when the wall to wall coverage is no longer favorable.

 

[Albion]

This is no different than the coverage given to Hillary's emails.

There doesn't seem to be an investigation into that "matter," however, or a special prosecutor. That seems like a difference to me. Another one is that there is proof of Hillary's home server and thousands of e-mails. And still another one is that that behavior on the part of the Secretary of State is criminal.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I still can't help but think that if Trump had simply

1. kept his big mouth shut, and
2. Stopped firing everyone charged with leading the Russia investigation,

that this whole thing would've blown over by now.

Seriously, has there been a problem he hasn't made worse?

 

[camille70]

There doesn't seem to be an investigation into that "matter," however, or a special prosecutor. That seems like a difference to me. Another one is that there is proof of Hillary's home server and thousands of e-mails. And still another one is that that behavior on the part of the Secretary of State is criminal.

Perhaps Benghazi would have been a batter exampled. There was no need for a special prosecutor, no one was trying to impede the investigations that were going on.

 

[Fantine]

I think the real reason why Trump needs to be removed from the presidency is the 25th Amendment--for incompetence. The proof builds with every day he remains in office and every sentence he utters. He shows no interest in even trying to educate himself about any issues to develop a minimal competency in his job.

And while I also believe that he has obstructed justice (and, if he tries to fire Mueller, will obstruct it further) and is unlawfully profiting from his business violating the emoluments clause, it is his incompetency that puts our country in the greatest danger.

Was he also aware of Russia's interference in order to get him elected? I'm not sure, because of the basic incompetency issues. When a person spends most of his/her day thinking about himself, there isn't much time to think about anything else.