tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post2716148182598090289..comments2024-03-28T15:56:24.104-04:00Comments on THE BLOG: The President Can/ Cannot Be Charged With Obstruction Rumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08380575650255695462noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-43626291613462604072017-12-09T10:47:45.161-05:002017-12-09T10:47:45.161-05:00Jerri Beth Cohen is a target for the next election...Jerri Beth Cohen is a target for the next election cycle. What the JQC did not do voters will. She can then praise and lobby for her friends to other judges openly but not in the corridors of the Justice Building. No secret remains unearthed in this Town. When you advance any agenda you better know who your friends adversaries allies are and who will respond.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-65347162826269232472017-12-08T18:16:56.348-05:002017-12-08T18:16:56.348-05:00We know the democrats PAID actual Russians for dir...We know the democrats PAID actual Russians for dirt (in Russia), which was false, all the while the democrats pretended they had no idea where the dirt came from, then peddled it to and had it published by the media, and possibly it became the basis for a democratic administration to spy on a trump campaign official during a freaking campaign, then Americans whose communications were incidentally collected were unmasked, and then the communications were leaked to the media to embarrass trump.<br /><br />If we think the trump campaign just agreeing to take a meeting with a Russian lawyer in New York is evidence of collusion, what do you call the above?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-18933044841917472592017-12-08T12:54:57.466-05:002017-12-08T12:54:57.466-05:00refrain from argument ad feminam, a logical fallac...refrain from argument ad feminam, a logical fallacyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-5470351304648100532017-12-08T06:38:34.179-05:002017-12-08T06:38:34.179-05:00It is lawful for the President to appoint the FBI ...It is lawful for the President to appoint the FBI Director. It is lawful for the Senate to give advise and consent for the appointee. The FBI Director takes an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution when he/she assumes office. His/her loyalty to the constitution is superior to his/her loyalty to the President, even though the FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President, and legally can be fired by the President at any time. As well, the President serves at the pleasure of the Senate, for he can be removed by impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is scantly defined. It basically means that the President has crossed the line. Impeachment is usually more political than criminal. Therefore, it does not matter so much whether what the President does is criminal for impeachment purposes. What matters is whether what he does is politically tolerable. <br /><br />Manchurian Candidate turned out to be Moscow's candidate, and the President does not like the FBI investigating the legitimacy of the election. The Constitution demands that the President be elected by the People of the United States. Not Russia. Even if the allegations are a "Nothing Burger," the people deserve an investigation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-5880430981261318012017-12-07T20:06:49.794-05:002017-12-07T20:06:49.794-05:00Rump,
What are the new judicial assignments? Som...Rump,<br /><br />What are the new judicial assignments? Some people got motions to set for hearing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-34326498846353488072017-12-07T19:47:34.715-05:002017-12-07T19:47:34.715-05:00Rump takes it with his strict interpretation of Ar...Rump takes it with his strict interpretation of Article 1 Sec 3. I think today's Supremes would uphold that view. As to MM's "the Perez is not above the law"...that's for Congress to decide. Impeachment is political, not criminal. Nixon wasn't indicted b/c Ford's first act as Prez was to give him a blanket pardon. He prolly would have been, post resignation/impeachment.I'm not a lawyer, but I once played one in school..noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-65469193680106599172017-12-07T18:57:55.484-05:002017-12-07T18:57:55.484-05:00Captain Justice,
You can cite any statute you wan...Captain Justice,<br /><br />You can cite any statute you want, but they are all subservient to Article II, Section I of the Constitution, which explains “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”<br /><br />Or check out Myers v. United States.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-55774424451826867862017-12-07T18:40:15.362-05:002017-12-07T18:40:15.362-05:003years one month and 14 days left. Suck it up, pin...3years one month and 14 days left. Suck it up, pinkosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-47502659916076603872017-12-07T14:28:05.726-05:002017-12-07T14:28:05.726-05:00Rumpole wins by a landslide. MM sounds like a coll...Rumpole wins by a landslide. MM sounds like a college student. The idea that she would equate obstruction to murder sorta makes that point. Here, The debate is if trump can be charged with onbstruxtion for his acts. He is above the ag (captain) which is so obvious as he sits atop the executive branch. Therefore, in this case he is above the law. Prosecutors (and the president) have broad charging discretion. Crooks are known to prosecutors and avoid charges because of this rule, nalmost daily. And here we go a step further because trump could pardon everyone. This is not a close legal call. However, this is politics and egos and political ideology. Politics is a contact sport. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-41812241074793787802017-12-07T13:40:15.130-05:002017-12-07T13:40:15.130-05:00
R: The President is the chief law enforcement of...<br /><br />R: The President is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.<br /><br />I thought that the AG was the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the US:<br /><br />The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government<br /><br />The United States Attorney General (A.G.) is the head of the United States Department of Justice per 28 U.S.C. § 503, concerned with legal affairs, and is the chief law enforcement officer and chief lawyer of the United States government<br /><br />CAPTAIN JUSTICEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12179932096244679236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-71426083499955777832017-12-07T11:42:20.775-05:002017-12-07T11:42:20.775-05:00Everybody lost because millennial me is a moron an...Everybody lost because millennial me is a moron and I wasted minutes of my day reading this slop Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-59278825809929040122017-12-07T10:48:39.541-05:002017-12-07T10:48:39.541-05:00Rump is 100% correct. Taken to its logical extrem...Rump is 100% correct. Taken to its logical extreme, the executive branch, though the FBI and US Attorneys, makes decisions every day of when to start and terminate investigations based on a myriad of factors, some political and some not. Bill Clinton terminated the US Attorney's prosecution of Marc Rich in 2000 by pardoning him. Did that obstruct an investigation? Absolutely. Ditto George HW Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger. In fact, the purpose of both pardons was exactly that: to put an end to prosecutorial efforts once and for all. These actions were taken on the last day of their presidencies because they then would not be subject to impeachment, the only remedy. This girl MM needs to spend less time shopping for new shoes and more time reading quality history books.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-48983062655869026792017-12-07T10:46:06.651-05:002017-12-07T10:46:06.651-05:00Our entire system of government is predicated on t...Our entire system of government is predicated on the idea that its chief is not a King. Nevertheless, the President is the head of the executive. I agree that Trump could have fired Comey for any reason, even that he was investigating a buddy or potential co-conspirator. That action cannot be obstruction. <br /><br />However, the President can be held to account if he otherwise breaks the law - for example, he conspires with others to lie to the FBI, conspires with foreign agents to break the law, participates in conspiracies to burgle, etc. I just think that in carrying out his executive function (hiring and firing), he cannot be held to account. I also believe that he can direct the FBI who to investigate and who not to investigate - but at some peril that those actions (as they will be in this case) can be used as evidence of other crimes.<br /><br />Simple enough for your two?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19039943.post-43569405937704915322017-12-07T09:33:09.273-05:002017-12-07T09:33:09.273-05:00Rumpole 1
Millennial CryBaby 0Rumpole 1<br />Millennial CryBaby 0Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com