I don’t think that addresses my point, and hence have nothing further to add.
Read my prior post.
It’s about the talking point, which is “There is no case for obstruction of justice. This point has been made by legal scholars from both sides of the aisle over and over again.”
The first sentence of that requires one to believe both that the referenced legal scholars are correct, and that everything in Mueller’s investigation is public knowledge. I’m saying that’s a silly presumption, and thus why I disagree with you about it being a good talking point.
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps;20280000/]
Read my prior post.
[/QUOTE]
The one that says " because he is the ultimate authority over the DOJ and under the law can do all these things. If this is correct, then investigating the facts to determine whether or not Trump ordered the Flynn investigation shut down or why he fired Comey is legally moot." ?
If so, I disagree. A president can fire an FBI director for no reason, but he cannot do it for the purpose of shutting down an investigation.
All it requires is that there be a significant difference between an investigation of known allegations of obstruction of justice and an investigation of possible unknown theoretical obstruction. As long as you grant that the difference matters, then pointing out that it’s not the first is an excellent talking point, even if people may rise up to claim that you never know if it might be the second.
In that same post I also pointed out that other legal experts disagree. Therefore your subsequent post in which you asserted at greater length that other legal experts disagree was nothing new.
As there are legal experts on both sides of this issue, your new assertion here as to your own position on this issue does not carry much weight, WADR.
I happen to think you went shopping for a talking head on television that supports your point of view, whereas my talking heads are paragons of truth.
That’s generally the case, isn’t it? 
Since I quoted the entire talking point, you’re reading in a metric shitload of stuff that isn’t in it.
Sure, you could be right, but there’s no reason to see that as the default.
I know it’s a partisan site, but it avoids a WSJ paywall. From Politicus USA:
How dare he! Is there evidence?
Pretend there is for a moment – let’s jump ahead to the rationalization. Why was Trump (WINNING! MAGA!) correct to do this?
If I “pretend there is”, then Trump was wrong. Pretend there isn’t (since no one apparently has found any). Was Trump wrong to do this?
Just like with Comey, and Trump knowing he was not under investigation, Trump knows there is no evidence, he sees lies about this in the press and he wants people who know those are lies to come out publicly and say that they are.
What a horrible horrible person.
This requires both trust in Trump and trust that Trump knows everything that everyone in his team did. I don’t have either one. In any case, the way Trump is responding to this makes him look more guilty, not less, IMO – innocent Republican politicians would be happy to let an investigation, especially when it’s led by someone with as impeccable bipartisan and Republican credentials as Mueller, take its course.
“Trump calls the media liars” - headline from Pot Kettle Magazine
If he knows there is no evidence he sure isn’t acting like it. He should be confident that the investigations will reveal nothing, yet he’s acting like a cornered animal lashing out and trying to throw his weight around to squash it. His actions betray his confidence in his innocence.
Of course. Trying to refute the media’s lies is “acting like a cornered animal”. Riiiight.
The whole world lies but the yam tells the truth. Okay, I see your point of view now.
Sure is. Desperately trying to stop the investigation is not the move of an innocent man. Freaking out on twitter constantly is not the move of an innocent man. You are just too blinded by partisanship to admit it. That’s all that is going on here. Look at the polls on the investigations, look at his disapproval ratings. He’s losing, and the more he flails about the more he loses.
Also, a liar calling someone else a liar is ridiculous. The media is reporting what has been given to them. That’s news, not lies. Just because he doesn’t like the information that is getting to them doesn’t make it lies to report it.
Ding! Ding! Winner!
The proper response of an innocent person: please, come in, look around, take your time. Happy to assist duly appointed officers of the law in their valuable service to the nation.
The response of a guilty man: Nothing to see here. Nobody home. Go away. You’re fired. I’m innocent and everybody else is lying.
Ever heard the expression “the cover-up is worse than the crime”? Happens. People do that. And with Donald Trump, with his background as an unchecked business mogul, his general ignorance of the interplay of the various branches of government and the media, and his emotional immaturity, you would expect that to happen more than with anyone else.
You’re right. WTF were people thinking when they voted for this bozo?? What are the Congressional Republicans thinking by not dumping him for Mike Pence, yesterday if not sooner?
Seriously:
a) If he’s that bad, he’s got no business being President. And the ‘adults in the room’ that enable his Presidency to continue deserve the brunt of the blame for him.
b) The cover-up very often isn’t worse than the crime, either. But the main thing about obstruction of justice is that it prevents the legal system from determining how bad the actual crime was, and that’s why it’s a crime in its own right. I’m not going to feel sorry for someone who does that.