I do/did use “preview.” I use it every time I post. The logic of the positioning still flew past me. What can I say? <shrug>
I wasn’t making an argument, so don’t quote me out of context and roll your digital eyes at me. I was replying directly to Stranger.
From your cite: “The laws governing obstruction of justice require prosecutors to show a person “corruptly” tried to influence a probe — meaning investigators have to find some evidence of what a person was thinking when taking a particular action.” Emphasis added. That’s enough to scare anyone away-- surely the world needs to be spared from peering into the abyss!! 
That he “corruptly” attempted to obstruct justice is supported by the fact that he fired Comey after he didn’t improperly end the investigation.
I’m not exactly sure why this is hard to understand; the Republicans will not impeach him unless they think it will cost them elections not to, and there is no evidence this is the case.
They will not impeach even if there is clear evidence of obstruction of justice. I’m very sorry to be the bearer of bad news here, because I fear Trump and want him out as much as anyone, but of course Congress will not impeach and will not convict just because Trump broke the law.
At present, as has been pointed out, there is NOT clear enough evidence to prove Trump broke a law, but it doesn’t matter. Even if that evidence comes to light, Republicans will not impeach him. Not for obstruction of justice, not for any crime. Not for murder. They will only impeach him for threatening their re-election chances, and that is not presently the case. Fox News and the alt-right media are working very hard to spin this and present silly lies for the Trumpists to consume so they will continue supporting Trump, and it’s working quite well.
We’ll get a clue pretty quick, I figure. Trump will hold rallies, massive displays of the unyielding love of the American people. The question then becomes a matter of venue, which locations can best accommodate the expected flood of loyal Americans. Would that be a huge sports stadium that can seat one hundred thousand, or the Banquet Room of the Holiday Inn out on Highway 9?
Don’t fear. Putin has offered the official Russian transcript of the meeting should the Hairy Yam need it to defend himself. Staffers will probably cheer this as an honest and open offering from Putin.
Can’t wait to see to see what Trump tweets about the offer.
I was thinking tushie, or tuchus. tracks and tail work as well.
there are some people i would always either have witnesses or record. mr trump would be top of the list.
Also supported by the fact that he had everyone else - including Comey’s boss - leave the room before he made the request. Why do that if your question is perfectly above-board?
The Waffle House next to the Walmart.
Are there no telephone booths in DC anymore?
Agreed. People seem to forget that congress was in Democrat hands during Nixon’s Watergate fiasco. If they had the current arrangement (and the current number of “safe” seats, Nixon would have finished out his term with ease.
Whenever it comes time for Donald Trump to do the right thing, history strongly suggests you should prepare to be disappointed.
Anyway, the only precedent for such an act, Nixon, was wayyyy closer to impeachment when he quit than Trump is.
[QUOTE=Euphonius Polemic]
Agreed. People seem to forget that congress was in Democrat hands during Nixon’s Watergate fiasco. If they had the current arrangement (and the current number of “safe” seats, Nixon would have finished out his term with ease.
[/QUOTE]
I have to, again, stress that this is not true. Control of Congress was not what tilted the issue in 1974. Had Congress been arranged in 1974 as it is now, Nixon would have been doomed to impeachment and conviction.
Remember, the system is that 2/3 of the Senate must vote to convict. In 1974, the Republicans held 42 seats in the Senate, enough to block a conviction - but in fact, by the time he resigned, the Republicans themselves were mostly going to convict. The estimation of Barry Goldwater was that his party would provide Nixon with no more than 18 votes to acquit and most would convict - Goldwater himself, who delivered the bad news, planned to vote to convict and said so right to Nixon’s face. The Democrats held the House, too, but, again, it made no difference; the House Republicans were unsheathing the knives, and according to their leadership Nixon had little support in their ranks.
The difference between 1974 and 2017 is not the arrangement of Congress, but the priorities and moral courage of the men and women in it. In 1974, when it was apparent the President had committed a crime, the people in his own party wanted him gone, and were willing to impeach and convict him. It is worth noting that Nixon retained stubborn support thoughout the process, and it look a long time to erode, but once the Smoking Gun Tapes came out, his own party was prepared to tie him to a rail. In 2017, every indication is that Republicans not only don’t want to impeach but are actively attempting to prevent an investigation; they don’t even want to have the facts come out to make them think about impeachment, and if criminal facts do come out, the likelihood is they will simply refuse to impeach anyway. Republicans in 1974 were (mostly) loyal to the Constitution and their duty as public servants. Republicans in 2017 mostly are not.
Really, at this point, Trump should just appoint Putin to be head of the FBI. This would alleviate many problems. Should be a piece of cake to get him approved by the Republicans in congress.
That is strong evidence of corrupt intent. I haven’t yet heard any effective counter by the Trump apologists, either. The fact that Trump asked the Vice President and Attorney General to leave the room is clear-cut: it’s a non-technical, easy-to-understand principle. You don’t ask others to leave if what you’re going to say is ‘just joking around’ (which is the only apologist theory I’ve heard so far–and it’s a poor one).
I don’t think it’s so clear cut. I’ve been in many meetings wherein a couple of folks stayed behind to discuss some issue that wasn’t the main point of the meeting. Trump can spin that aspect of it pretty easily: he was asking specifically about an FBI investigation, so he didn’t want to waste other folks’ time.
It’s a bullshit excuse, but it can maintain deniability.
Perhaps, but if you’re in a meeting, and the boss says “you, you and YOU, leave the room now”… That’s not a situation where the meeting is over and “a couple of folks stay behind.”
But I think you’re missing the point that, between June of 1972 and July of 1974, a lot of what happened that pushed the eventual change in opinions of Republican Senators and Representatives happened because the Democrats were in control, and kept up a running investigation into the Watergate break-in. Absent that investigation, absent the Special Prosecutor being appointed, a lot of what eventually dragged Mr. Nixon down would never have happened.
I have a report that will make all liberals lose faith in humanity.
What is it, a goatse picture, a Rick roll, what?
Worse, a poll of american attitudes towards the two parties
Republicans could piss in Americans faces, and they’d still support them, at least they are not like THOSE people, those LIBERALS!