Does that mean that only threats or force meet the criteria for obstruction of justice? What about stuff like payoffs, helping witnesses flee the jurisdiction, sudden promotions/transfers for all the investigating officers, etc.? Separate crimes, perhaps, but not specifically obstruction of justice?
What about “I’m your boss. Drop the investigation of my friends.”? Just a bald order.
I’m not trying to be snarky; I don’t understand the legal nicities.
That sounds like a great principle for perpetuating one’s ignorance.
Probably not when you’re an attorney in court.
That was the implication. Not that Kobal2 didn’t know that.
I thought that was the reason to make a prediction on this MB. 
Angry is not a thing Canadians normally do. Check his passport.
Round these parts it’s called “Gaudere’s Law,” pard.
Cue the call for a Special Prosecutor to provide more than internet allegations. 
That was…classy. What did you do with the old Superdude?
Duh?
You do not think a constitutional convention can ever be convened or you do not think one ever should be convened?
No question it would be quite the show with everyone crawling out of the woodwork to propose their own change.
Fortunately the vote to accept those changes is pretty steep so the “We should all move back to the trees” people likely won’t get very far.
Oh, we have angry dudes. They usually come from Alberta. We make them put that on their passport.
That’s not an answer that means anything.
Well, what if its not a threat or a bribe, but an entreaty? What if Trump dropped to the floor, flung himself around Comey’s knees, and begged, pleaded and beseeched?
Seems to me, a boor of little brain and TG,IANAL, but still seems to me that the essential criminality of any effort to affect an investigation is the effort itself. Whether the effort is couched as a threat, a bribe or a blubbering cry for mercy has no bearing on the thing itself. Ugly is ugly, whether its a horn toad, a Moray eel or Yo Mamma.
Libertarians have a shitty concept of history. It’s one of many things they cannot seem to grasp.
…or whether it’s ultimately successful.
The unfortunate part is that the delegates would be chosen by the states, and the Tea Partiers would be pushing to have the most radical, bug-fucking crazy right wingers stacked to the ceiling in any convention.
Well-phrased, but don’t you think “loadstone” would have been a bit more felicitous? Or would using that along with “moral compost” have been too broad for your tastes?
Unlikely, or he wouldn’t be proposing a change to it.
He just believes that any SCOTUS precedents that have relied on penumbras and/or emanations would be on solider constitutional footing if they had been achieved thrkugh legislation or by constitutional amendment.
He has stated as much, several times, during his tenure as a Doper.
Are you certain that you didn’t intend to say if proven, would warrant conviction and removal from office?
If not, you seem to be effectively suggesting that when an indictment is handed down, the charge[s], if proven, would warrant the indictment of the defendant.
(I know that this post may seem chronologically out of whack with my last two, but I decided to wait and see if anyone else brought it up.)
What, in your opinion, is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment? Or do you think the Ninth Amendment has no meaning?
Do you feel the Second Amendment includes a right to own and carry ammunition? If so, where is that stated in the text of the Constitution?
I actually didn’t. If it’s an idiom, I didn’t know that one. In my defense, I’m French.
Exactly. The moment you spring that little word trap on the right wing bozos, they go bananas.
I’m not so sure about that. Hillary lost, after all.