I have, but because you don’t want to hear the answer, you blot it out.
Build towards 2020.
Stop yapping about impeachment until unambiguous criminal evidence appears. Emoluments, land leases, and hiring Jared Kushner have all been suggested as reasons for impeachment, which proves only that you’re desperate to impeach and don’t really care about the niceties of the process.
What I type:
Build towards 2020.
Stop yapping about impeachment until unambiguous criminal evidence appears.
So attempting to influence an investigation isn’t illegal? If the mayor of a city called the police chief and told him to stop investigating a particular crime ( lets say mayor suspects his kid is a drug dealer, and wants the police to stop investigating marijuana sales in a particular neighborhood) - no law is broken?
I would have assumed there is some sort of law against that sort of thing, so i am genuinely curious that it’s legal.
As of now, zero out of two impeachments of a President have resulted in conviction and removal (Nixon quit before he could be impeached). Even though we like to say it’s a political process and you don’t really need the kind of evidence that will hold up in a “real” court, the scant record so far with Presidents is the House may reach for whatever they can hang it on, but Senators are loath to sack a President unless you got yourself something really worth the potential fallout.
But at the same time, the fact that it IS political means I don’t expect the congressional GOP will lend the votes unless you have a rock solid slam dunk of a case, perhaps involving dead girls AND live boys, shootings in broad daylight on 5th Avenue and inviting Putin to reannex the Aleutians, with multiple eyewitnesses and a sworn confession.
I have no idea. What state? What’s the line of reporting? How explicitly does the mayor deliver his request?
Here there are two federal laws in play. One relates to investigations where there is a grand jury convened, and the other requires more specifically clear actions than have been alleged against Trump. My post 161 gives detailed discussion.
I would think that any time someone with the power to fire someone else makes a suggestion, that is more than a suggestion.
If I tell an employee, “I hope that you clean up the backroom.” That’s not just an idle hope, or a wish that they take it upon themselves to clean up, but it is actually an order, given by the boss, a person who can fire or otherwise directly affect their employment.
A boss gives orders to employees under threat of firing, always, even if they are couched in more friendly terms.
You mean by sharing anti-terrorism data? Yeah, real collusion there.
Comey was fired for being incompetent, not for investigating. Remember him announcing the result of the FBI’s investigation of Clinton showing that she had committed felonies…and then giving her a pass on them? Or have you conveniently forgotten that?
Probably better than you, because it was the USSR that was the US’s biggest enemy. That no longer exists, or did you not get the memo?
I was responding snarkily that even if there were rock solid proof of dead girls, live boys, and a give away of the aleutian islands, that he would still be defended under the defense of “it is not illegal if the president does it.” I assume that I am wrong on this point that I made sarcastically, but I actually do fear that I am not.
Apologies, Miller. I had a momentary lapse. As far as ThelmaLou, all she did was echo my sentiment. It’s all on me. I know no warnings were issued, but I was the rulebreaker.
It might be a crime. The legality would turn on how reasonable the chief’s reaction was – in other words, objectively, would a reasonable person perceive a threat?
It would also depend upon showing that the mayor intended to deliver that threat.
But the kicker would be whether the conduct continued after the chief advised the mayor to stop: “…fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction” is an element of Va Code § 18.2-460(A).
These are elements that don’t have corresponding federal analogues.
The press is also reporting that Trump cleared the room prior to talking to Comey. He asked Pence and Sessions to leave, leaving him alone. Legally, does this demonstrate that Trump knew that what he was doing was questionable?