Mueller has Substantiation of Comey’s Claims re Trump

[redleghunter]

Huh...?? Then why are you on this thread...??

I do like examining obsessions.

 

[AirPo]

Too bad Comey goes to jail as well if reports are true. Failure to report the crime makes him complicit.

Unless Trump pardons him!


Sometimes I make myself laugh.

 

[redleghunter]

Unless Trump pardons him!


Sometimes I make myself laugh.

Now that was funny.

 

[AirPo]

Now that was funny.

And sometimes I make others laugh.

 

[DaisyDay]

When Clinton was impeached, they had overwhelming evidence that he lied under oath and committed perjury. The Senate acquitted him even with this overwhelming evidence, so it clearly, is not easy, to get the senate to convict a president.

It isn't that the Senate found him not guilty of perjury, but that the perjury didn't reach the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". But you're right that it is a very high bar to reach to throw a president out of office. It hasn't been done yet.

 

[AirPo]

It isn't that the Senate found him not guilty of perjury, but that the perjury didn't reach the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". But you're right that it is a very high bar to reach to throw a president out of office. It hasn't been done yet.

It's looking like Trump might have a spot in history after all.

 

[DaisyDay]

Which just makes those who heard him complicit as well.

He was just the FBI (top cop) chief...

Your argument seems to be that cops can never make case that they're investigating if they didn't arrest the investigee at each point they obtained evidence against him.

 

[hislegacy]

Another “It was Colonel Mustard in the library with a candle stick conclusion of the infamous NYTimes. I would wait a Court me days for the retraction before shouting their praises.

Their history for accuracy is not good

 

[DaisyDay]

It's looking like Trump might have a spot in history after all.

Obviously he does, if only as the most uninterested, incompetent, generally ignorant person to be elected into the highest office, but it's not likely that he'd be tried or convicted by the Senate - I think he'd quit before it came to that. He might be the first to be removed on medical competency, though, if his brain function deteriorates very much further.

 

[bhsmte]

It isn't that the Senate found him not guilty of perjury, but that the perjury didn't reach the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". But you're right that it is a very high bar to reach to throw a president out of office. It hasn't been done yet.

Ok, that could have been. So perjury doesn't meet the criteria then for an impeachable offense.

 

[DaisyDay]

Their history for accuracy is not good

That's a false statement. It's a newspaper reporting on breaking stories not a history book and, as such, it is as accurate as the top tier.

 

[AirPo]

Ok, that could have been. So perjury doesn't meet the criteria then for an impeachable offense.

No, it doesn't.

 

[DaisyDay]

Ok, that could have been. So perjury doesn't meet the criteria then for an impeachable offense.

It might depend on what the perjury was about - national security, abuse of office or consensual sex acts between adults - context.

 

[bhsmte]

It might depend on what the perjury was about - national security, abuse of office or consensual sex acts between adults - context.

Could be. I can't recall, did the Senate actually vote on whether they felt Clinton's perjury met the standard?

 

[LoAmmi]

Could be. I can't recall, did the Senate actually vote on whether they felt Clinton's perjury met the standard?

Technically yes. When they voted not to remove him from office. But it doesn't set precedent really. The Senate could decide in the future to remove a President in the future for doing exactly what Clinton did. It's all in the hands of Congress to decide what rises to that level.

 

[bhsmte]

Technically yes. When they voted not to remove him from office. But it doesn't set precedent really. The Senate could decide in the future to remove a President in the future for doing exactly what Clinton did. It's all in the hands of Congress to decide what rises to that level.

And I believe they need a 2/3 vote to convict a president, if I am not mistaken.

 

[LoAmmi]

And I believe they need a 2/3 vote to convict a president, if I am not mistaken.

They do. It's a huge hurdle and, if they did it when not deserved, it's likely political suicide for those who did it. It's my opinion that the President would have to be caught killing someone or a treasonous act that everybody would recognize in order to be impeached. Nixon came the closest and I'm not sure the vote would even have removed him.

 

[KCfromNC]

Their history for accuracy is not good

What is their historical accuracy rate and how does it compare to other news outlets? Let's see some number here.

 

[cow451]

Ummmm....Comey says the President asked him to do a number of things regarding the Russia investigation. He took notes of that conversation. Trump denies that conversation. Priebus now confirms that those conversations took place.

That’s confirming evidence friend...!

Boom!

 

[hislegacy]

That red necktie getting a little tighter...?

Obstruction Inquiry Shows Trump’s Struggle to Keep Grip on Russia Investigation

“Mr. Mueller has also substantiated claims that Mr. Comey made in a series of memos describing troubling interactions with the president before he was fired in May.”

Can you please show the subtantiation that the article speaks of.

Need to show proof and not just because the article says so.

@JGG made some great points in his can we all agree thread